IIP University of Florida
F I Ft ) 0 N 1 5 A 1 iflo iM ™
* The Foundation * Florida Tomorrow UF Preeminence Giving * Contact Us
Home About the Foundation
2013/2014 Honor Roll of Donors
Search Results for " monsanto 11 :
Organizations
Monsanto Co. - Gold Donor
UF
WebMail | o-Learning | ISIS | myUFL | Campus Map | News | Calendar | Directory | Web Sfte Listing | Ask UF
About This Site | Disability Sorviees j Privacy Policy | Regulations | Cdritact Webmaster
Malke a General Gilt Id U F | Make a Gift 1b a CdllegOrtJtlit | UFF Disclosure Statement | U FF Business Canter
£> 201 1. U nlversity of Florida, Gainesville. FL 3261 1 ; (352) 3S2-32B 1 | Last Updated 1 1 jJSffiOl A .
Thi& page uses Guog e Analytics (GoCgle Privacy Policy)
I I UNIVERSITY of
UF [FLORIDA
The Foundation far The Gator Nation
l
IF
University of Florida
i rU u ©i oa ijiOiN
w
The Foundation ▼
Florida Tomorrow
UF Preeminence
(
jiving ▼
Contact Us ▼
Home About the Foundation
2013/2014 Honor Roll of Donors
Search Results for " syngenta 11 :
Organizations
Syngenta - Diamond Donor
Web Mail | S-Learning | ISIS | myUFL | Gampea Map | Ntews | Calandar | Directory | Wed S ie Listing | Ash UF
About This Site | Disability Services | Privacy Policy | FlagulatiQfiS | Contact WfibmaStar
Mafoa a General Gift to UF | Make a Gift lb a COllegeA-hit | UFF Disclosure Slatomedt | LTFF Business Geriter
£> 201 1 University or Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 ; (352J 3D2-32S 1 | Last Updated 1 1 /S201 A .
This page uses Goog'O Analytics [GoCsoIb Privacy Policy)
I I UNIVERSITY of
UF I FLORIDA
The Foundation for The Gdior Nation
UF University of Florida
The Foundation ▼ Florida Tomorrow UF Preeminence
Contact Us
1
Home About the Foundation
2013/2014 Honor Roll of Donors
Search Results for " basf
Organizations
BASF Gorp. - Gold Donor
UF-
WebMall | e-Leamirg | ISIS | myUFL | Campus Map j News | Calendar | Directory | Web Site Listing | Ask UF
About Tnia Site | Disability Services | Privacy Policy | RagulatibnS | Contact Webmaster
Make a General Gilt to UF | Make a Gift Id a GollegertJnlt | UFF Disclosure Statement | UFF Business Center
© 201 1 University Of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 ; (352) 392-320 T | Last Updated 1 1 VS201 A .
This, page uses Gbog e Analytics (GOcgla Privacy Policy)
I Y ^ I UNIVERSITY of
UF I FLORIDA
ri« foundation for The Gaiot Nation
University of Florida
J?0 0 N DA !,||OW ■
# The Foundation * Florida Tomorrow UF Preeminence Giving * Contact Us *
Home About the Foundation
2013/2014 Honor Roll of Donors
Search Results for " pioneer
Organizations
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. ■ Silver Donor
UF
WebMail | e-Learnihg | IS IS | myllFL | Campus M ap | News | Calender | Directory | Web Site Listing | Ask UF
About This Silo | Disability Services | Privacy Polity | Regulations | Contact Webmaster
Mate a General Gilt to U F | Make a Girt 10 a College/Unit I UFF Disclosure statement | U FF Bus’ ness Canter
s- £011 University OF Florida. Gainesville. FL 0£&1 1 ; (352) 392*3251 | Last Updated 1 1 /5£Q1 4.
This page uses GOogle Analytics (Google Privacy Policy)
tm | UNIVERSITY of
UF I FLORIDA
The Foundation for The Gator Nation
FOUNDATION
President's Council
The President’s Council is the University of Florida’s leadership giving society. It is named in honor of UF presidents, past and present, who have
helped create and preserve the University’s legacy of distinction and excellence in research, education and service. We honor you for your role in
helping UF continue to build on this legacy.
Your generosity is crucial to sustaining the fine educational and research opportunities that make the University of Florida unique — opportunities for
which public funding may not always be readily available. Thanks to your support, we have the ability to make these opportunities a reality for the UF
community and promote the high standards of learning and achievement for which the University of Florida is renowned.
President’s Council Membership Levels ()
Membership in the President’s Council is based on cumulative giving from generous alumni, friends and organizations. Gifts of cash, securities, real
estate or insurance premiums, employer matches and gifts in kind are all counted toward your cumulative giving, which determines your President’s
Council level. Deferred gifts at 50 percent of their face value are also included in your overall giving total.
DIAMOND
Cumulative Giving of $10 Million+
GOLD
Cumulative Giving of $1 Million+
SILVER
Cumulative Giving of $100,000+
President’s Council Benefits 0
Silver Level
Membership card
Football parking pass lottery
Complimentary day parking passes
President’s Council decal
Listing in the Honor Roll of Donors
University of Florida Alumni Association Life Member
Subscription to Florida GATOR magazine
20% discount at Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art and Florida Museum of Natural History gift shops
Gold Level
All Silver level benefits
Concierge services
Option to purchase a UF Official Business parking decal
Diamond Level
All Silver and Gold level benefits
Invitations to private events hosted by the President
Concierge Services 0
President’s Council Concierge
Babysitting Services
Qualified student ambassadors from the University of Florida can provide top-notch babysitting services for your children while you are in town.
Whether you are in Gainesville for business or pleasure, the kids will have fun with a capable and responsible student sitter.
From: REDING, H KEITH (AG/1000) [mailto:h.keith.reding@monsanto.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:27 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: sweet corn table
Hi Dr. Folta,
I read your comment on
http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/stunning com comparison gmo versus non gmo trying to
explain the science.
Thought you may like to see an article on the Monsanto blog addressing this table.
http://monsantoblog.com/2013/04/16/nutrition-and-gm-com-one-of-these-tables-is-not-like-the-
other/
Regards,
Keith Reding, Ph.D.
Regulatory Policy Lead
314-694-6615 W
314-809-9624 C
t rom: REDING, H KEITH (AG/1 000) <h.keith.reding@monsanto.com>
Sent time: 04/17/2013 04:38:14 PM
T° : Folta, Kevin M.
SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) <eric.s.sachs@monsanto.com>; SWARTHOUT, JOHN T (AG/1000) <john.t.swarthout@monsanto.com>;
DOBERT, RAYMOND C (AG/1000) <raymond.c.dobert@monsanto.com>; GAO, YONG (AG/1000) <yong.gao@monsanto.com>
Subject: RE: swee ^ corn table
Hi Kevin,
I am cc’ing my colleagues in scientific affairs. If you ever need any information from us, please let
us know. We really appreciate independent scientists working to educate the public.
Keith
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:31 PM
To: REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000]
Subject: RE: sweet corn table
Hi Keith,
I read the blog on this site right after the twitter post last night. I’m on an email right now with
someone (not this one) that still thinks those numbers are legit.
I’m blown away that people could be so incredibly gullible and lack any scientific scrutiny.
It’s tough to be a scientific communicator these days. I did a public talk on synthetic biology
today, mostly microbial. The whole Q&A was about the “Monsanto protection Act”.
The world is officially nuts. Keep me in mind if you ever need a good public interface, with no
corporate ties, that knows the subject inside and out and can think on his feet.
Kevin
GAO, YONG (AG/1000) <yong gao@monsantoxom>
04/17/2013 05:19:09 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
RE: sweet com tabic
Dr. Folta,
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Misinformation campaign in ag biotech area is more than overwhelming, it is really hurting the
progress of translating science and knowledge into ag productivity improvement to produce more
(while conserve more on per unit basis) to feed the world. I am gratefUl that academics like you
are willing to speak out on the science in this area to the public, as I know how tough it is to do
because everyone is already too busy and because there are people there who do not like to hear
the truth of science for all kinds of reasons. Thank you for supporting science and for educating
those who are open to science.
Yong
Yong Gao, PhD, MBA
Director Global Regulatory Policy
Monsanto Company
800 North Lindbergh Blvd
St Louis, Missouri 63167
USA
Internet
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
& Scientific Affairs
+1 314 694-3855 office
+1 314488-0971 mobile
+1 314 694-8414 fax
yon g . m ons: m to cum
w w w, mon s an to.com
https;//www.facebook.com/MonsantoCo
hllps://lwilter.coni/MonsantoCo
http : /www ,y o utu be . com/m onsantoco
MONS \SIO
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:47 PM
To: REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000]
Cc: SACHS, ERIC S [AG/1000]; SWARTHOUT, JOHN T [AG/1000]; DOBERT, RAYMOND C [AG/1000];
GAO, YONG [AG/1000]
Subject: RE: sweet corn table
Thanks Keith.
I’m an academic scientist and love making complex topics approachable. I’ve spoken about
transgenic technology in whole foods co-ops, vegan groups and in anti-GMO debates. The vegans
are cool — 1 actually have changed quite a few minds there. They tend to be critical thinkers!
I’m always here and glad to help. My background is in communications and my Ph.D in molecular
biology. . . good mix. Did a lot of discussion in the press pre-prop37.
Kevin
chrislie.lv@kKtchum.rom
From: Ly, Christie
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:57 AM
To: krolLa@ufl.edu
Subject: New forum to address GMO
Hello Mr. Folta,
On behalf of The Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI), we would like to introduce
you to a new forum designed to address the challenging questions about biotechnology in
food and agriculture. The number of everyday people wanting to understand GMOs better is
increasing, but we haven't always done a great job of communicating with the public. CBI
is committed to responding to consumer questions about how our food is grown.
We're inviting experts from academia, government, the industry, and others to help address
consumers' questions with facts and insight that shed more light on the complicated nature
of GMOs. This is a new way to build trust, dialogue and support for biotech in agriculture.
Given your expertise, we would like to preview our program with you and ask for your
feedback. As a respected leader in the nation's food conversation, your opinion is critical -
and we hope you will consider providing input.
Could we set up a brief call to walk you through the CBI program, planned activities, and
possible ways to support this endeavor? We're coordinating calls with experts across the
industry in advance of our launch, and hope we can spend a few minutes with you.
We welcome an opportunity to speak with you further, and thank you in advance for your
attention to this invitation.
Thank you for your time.
Best,
Christie
Christie C. Ly
Ketchum for Council for Biotechnology Information
mobile: 917-617-2437
christic.lvPketchum.com
From:
Ly, Christie <Christie.Ly@ketchum.com>
Sent time: 06/07/2013 04:19:51 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: re : New forum to address GMO
Thanks, Kevin. No need for nights /weekends :) but thanks for the offer.
What day works best for you next week? The briefings should last no longer than 30 minutes. The team
is based on the west coast so anytime 12noon ET / 9 am PT after is best.
The only exception is on Tuesday, June 11. ..the team is available 2pm ET or after.
Thank you!
Christie
Christie C. Ly
Ketchum for CBI
mobile: 917-617-2437
christie.ly@ketchum.com
From: Folta, Kevin M. [kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 1:15 PM
To: Ly, Christie
Subject: Re: New forum to address GMO
Hi Christie, glad to participate. I can take a call anytime, even nights/weekends, or we can schedule next week.
Kevin
** * * *
Sent from my phone.
On Jun 7, 2013, at 1 1:37 AM, "Ly, Christie" Christie. Lvfo kctchum.com> wrote:
Hello Mr. Folta,
I wanted to follow up to see if you'd be interested in learning more about this new forum. If
so, we'd like to set up a brief call in the next couple of weeks.
Best
Christie
Christie C. Ly
Ketchum for CBI
mobile: 917-617-2437
christie.lv@ketchum.t;om
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Schmidt, Emily <Emily. Schmidt@ketchum.com>
07/31/2013 09 15:20 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
Additional GMO Answers Question - Assistance Requested
Hi Kevin- 1 hope you are doing well. I believe you in Hawaii w/ Steve...? I hope things are going well -
sounded like you folks were headed out there for a real boondoggle.
I following up on the GMO Answers front - now live at www.GMQAnswers.com . The conversation on the
site is very lively, we have received tons of new comments and questions from consumers - as expected
the website has invited some diverse viewpoints - many are critical of biotechnology. Feel free to share
your thoughts and feedback on the site - we are still working through a few functionalities since the launch
of the site.
Curious if you would be willing to respond to a question posted to the site (see below). ..know there are a
lot of request of your time and we certainly understand if you will not be able to respond, just let us know
and we will develop a new approach for the question responses.
Thanks.
Can you describe in detail the process by which genes are altered in foods?
Background Information: (Please free to revise and use your own words here. ..only background information)
In the wild, the transfer of genes within and across species is fairly common, either through traditional
reproduction (breeding) or through non-traditional means. Viruses and bacteria do this all the time, as do
plants and animals. Human DNA, for instance, is full of viral genes.
When humans began to farm about ten thousand years ago, they took the seeds from edible wild plants
and sowed them to create crops. Early farmers selected the most desirable plants to provide seeds for the
next year's crop. They looked for faster growth, higher yields, larger seeds, tastier fruit, bigger plants,
resistance to insects, other pests, and disease, and other desirable traits. Eventually they learned that
plants within the same species, and in the 1700's, across different species could be artificially mated or
cross-pollinated to improve the characteristics of the plant. These farmers knew nothing of genes, of
course, but were actually altering the genetic makeup of the plants. By creating better plants through
selective breeding, they were practicing what is now called genetic modification.
In the 20 th century, scientists began to experiment with a new different form of breeding in corn called
hybridization. This involves developing a "pure" line of corn (a strain in which desired characteristics are
present in successive generations) and then combining ("crossing") it with another pure line to create an
even better and more vigorous line. Hybrids came to dominate the corn market, and the technique was
applied to other crops as well. In the United States, 95 percent of the corn acreage is planted with hybrid
corn, enabling us to produce six times more corn on three percent fewer acres than we did 80 years ago.
In the 1940s Scientists also learned that they could alter the genetic makeup of plants by exposing them to
chemicals, x-rays and other forms of radiation, and then selected the plants that expressed the traits that
were being sought. This is called "mutagenesis" and has created many varieties of important crops.
These techniques and many others are called, "traditional or conventional breeding," and there is a high
degree of uncertainty and unpredictability associated with these types of genetic modification, as large
amounts of genetic material are exchanged when two organisms' genomes are crossed, or in the case of
mutagenesis, genetic changes are created randomly.
Genetic engineering is more precise. Only a few genes that are needed to achieve the desired trait are
transferred from one organism to another. The difference between traditional breeding and genetic
engineering is illustrated in the picture below from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. In popular culture.
genetic engineering has become synonymous with genetic modification and an organism that has been
genetic engineered is often referred to as a genetically engineered organism or GMO.
Methods of Plant Breeding
Traditional
The traditional plant breeding process introduces a number of genes into the plant. These genes may include the
gene responsible for the desired characteristic, as well as genes responsible for unwanted characteristics.
Donor Variety DNA Strand
DNA strands contain a portion of an
organism's entiie genome.
Recipient Variety
DNA Strand
Vv * <lt v\ v
Desired gene
New Variety DNA Strand
Many genes are transferred
with the desired gene.
Genetic Engineering
Genetic engineering enables the introduction into the plant of the specific
gene or genes responsible for the characteristic(s) of interest. By narrowing
the introduction to one or a few identified genes, scientists can introduce
the desired characteristic without also introducing genes responsible for
unwanted characteristics.
Donor Organism DNA Strand
The desired gene is copied from
the donor organism's genome.
Recipient Variety
DNA Strand
New Variety DNA Strand
Only the desired gene is
transferred to a location in the
recipient genome.
answeis
ASK
YOU R QUESTIONS
EXPLORE
THE B ASICS
STUDIES DIG ABOUT
AND ARTICLES DEEPER GMO ANSWERS
Search Entire Site
GO
© O @®0
Ask Us Anything About GMOs!
How is your question answered?
Moderator Updates
Welcome to the GMO Answers
community! Please remember
to vote on the questions you'd
like to see answered first
Can you describe in detail the process by which genes are altered in foods?
Question Submitted By: snlgmo from Washington, DC
' Questions submitted to GMO Answers appear as written at the time of submission. Questions are reviewed to ensure they
conform with our house rules , but are never edited or altered by GMO Answers.
l£l Notification Preferences
A; Expert Answer
By: Kevin Folta, Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida or Thursday, 8/0-8/2013
8:35 pm
In the wild, the transfer of genes within and across species is fairly common, either through traditional reproduction
(breeding] or through non -traditional means. Viruses and bacteria do this all the time, as do plants and animals. Human
DNA, for instance, is full of viral genes.
When humans began to farm between 10 and 20 thousand years ago, they took the seeds from their best edible wild
plants and sowed them to create crops. Early farmers selected the most desirable plants to provide seeds for the next
year's crop. They looked for faster growth; higher yields; larger seeds; tastier fruit; bigger plants; resistance to insects,
other pests, and disease; and other desirable traits. One of the most important traits was that the plants didn't make them
sick. Eventually they learned that plants within the same species, and, in the 1700s, across different species, could be
artificially mated or cross- pollinated to improve the characteristics of the plant. These farmers knew nothing of genes, of
course, but were actually altering the genetic makeup of the plants. By creating better plants through selective breeding,
they were practicing genetic modffi cation-changing a genome through human intervention.
In the 20th century, scientists began to experiment with a new, different form of breeding in com, called hybridization.
This involves developing an "inbred" line of com [a genetically "pure" line where desired characteristics breed true in every
subsequent generation] and then combining Ccrossing") if with another pure line to create an even better and more
vigorous line. Hybrids came to dominate the corn market, and the technique was applied to other crops as well. In the
United States, 95 percent of the corn acreage is planted with hybrid corn, enabling us to produce six times more corn on
three percent fewer acres than we did 80 years ago.
Hybrids were great for the seed industry. Because they owned the parental inbred lines, only they could produce a specific
hybrid, meaning that farmers would return annually for the improved seeds.
In the 1940s, scientists also learned that they could alter the genetic makeup of plants by exposing them to chemicals, X-
rays and other forms of radiation,, and then select the plants that expressed the traits that were being sought. This is
called "mutation breeding" and has created many varieties of important crops.
These techniques and many others are called "traditional or conventional breeding," and there is a high degree of
uncertainty and unpredictability associated with these types of genetic modification, as large amounts of genetic material
are exchanged when two organisms' genomes are crossed or, in the case of mutagenesis, genetic changes are created
randomly. Mobile DNA found in every plant and animal also is mixed. These transposable elements jump in and out of
genomes, remodeling the genome continuously.
The process of genetic engineering is a more precise method of genetrc modification. Only one gene, or maybe a few genes,
are needed to achieve the desired trait and are transferred from one organism to another. The difference between
traditional breeding and genetic engineering is illustrated in the picture below, from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration. In popular culture, genetic engineering has become synonymous with genetic modification, and an
organism that has been genetically engineered is often referred to as a genetically modified organism, or GMO. The
technical term is "transgenic."
Professor and Chairman,
Horticultural Sciences
Department, University of
Florida
Kevin Folta is a professor in
and chairman of the
Horticultural Sciences
Department at the University
of Florida, Gainesville. He got
his Ph.D. in Molecular Biology
from University of Illinois at
Chicago in 1998, and he has
worked at University of
Wisconsin before settling in at
University of Florida. Dr. Folta
researches the functional
genomics of small fruit crops,
the plant transformation, the
genetic basis of flavors,
and studies at
photomorphogenesis and
flowering. He has also written
many publications and edited
books, most recently was the
2011 Genetics, Genomics, and
Breeding of Berries. Dr. Folta
received the NSF CAREER
Award, an HHMI Mentoring
Award and was recognized
as "University of Florida
Foundation Research
Professor" in 2010.
For more than 40 years, scientists have been able to cut DNA and paste it into a new context. Transgenic plants rely on
scientists identifying and amplifying the gene of interest and then inserting it into Agrobacteiium. a bacterial species that
makes natural genetic exchanges with plants. Scientists have disarmed Agrabacterium to work for them. The lab strains
of Agrobacterium (usual |y referred to as simply "Agro") can deposit DMA into a plant cell. Scientists place the gene of
interest into Agro and incubate it with piant tissues. Agro places the DNA into one cell, and then it is integrated into the
genome. The one cell can be placed into media where it will divide into a clump called a callus, a blob of generic ceils.
Plant cells make decisions based on plant hormones. Placing a callus on various hormone combinations causes the callus
to produce organized cellular structures that eventually emerge as new organs or embryos that lacer emerge into a whole
plant. If that foundational cell has your gene in it, it will be present in every cell of the new plant.
This is the process in a short form, in any lab, : t is reasonably simple for most species. Today, most labs don't even
bother. Instead, they contract the work out to one of several companies or university services that make the transgenic
for you. Basically, you can get your favorite gene installed in most ag crops pretty easily. From there, the gene might
instruct the plant to do something it never did, produce more of a product that is naturally there or even turn a gene off.
AH of these are valuable outcomes of the process.
Methods of Plant Breeding
Traditional
The traditional plant breeding process introduces a number of genes into the plant. These genes may include the
gene responsible for the desired characteristic, as well as genes responsible for unwanted characteristics.
Donor Variety DNA Strand
DNA strands contain a portion of an
organism's entire genome.
Recipient Variety
DNA Strand
New Variety DNA Strand
Many genes are transferred
with the desired gene.
Genetic Engineering
Genetic engineering enables the introduction into the plant of the specific
gene or genes responsible for the characteristic^) of interest- By narrowing
the introduction to one or a few identified, genes., scientists can introduce
the desired characteristic without also introducing genes responsible for
unwanted characteristics.
Topic: Science and GMQ Basics 3 Comments | Add Comment
Q SHRRE
To post a comment please login.
I'rmn:
Ly. Climlic <nmslitr, LyfTiikctclium com->
Subject: RL; GMO Answers - Your assisiimee is icijucsiccl
From: Ly, Christie [mailto:Christie.Ly@ketchum.com]
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 1:57 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: GMO Answers - Your assistance is requested
Hello Kevin,
Hope you had a wonderful 4th of July.
As we shared with you in our briefing, we would like to include you in our new GMO Answers forum,
which is designed to address the challenging questions about biotechnology in food and agriculture.
The Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) is committed to responding to consumer questions
about how our food is grown through this forum.
As a critical component to addressing consumer questions, we're inviting experts from academia,
government, the industry and others to share facts, insight and stories that help explain in an
independent voice what GMOs are, and how and why they are used. This is a new way to build trust,
dialogue and support for biotech in agriculture.
We’ve compiled frequently asked questions in preparation for our site launch this month
and we need your help responding. We selected several questions that fit youi expertise (below).
In addition, we’ve provided information (sample answers and references) that may be helpful in
formulating your response. However, we’d like to draw on your experiences and expertise. We want
your responses to be authentically yours. Please feel free to edit or draft all-new responses.
In an effort to meet the needs of the GMO Answers community, we’d appreciate feedback by next
Wednesday, July 10. If it’s not possible, please let us know and we'll determine a new approach.
Finally, we'd like to credit you for your thoughtful responses. If possible, we’d appreciate the
following:
• Photo (jpg image)
• Link to your bio
• Preferred title
As a respected leader in the nation's food conversation, your voice is critical and we hope you will
consider sharing perspective in your own words. Thank you in advance.
Thanks,
Christie
Christie C. Ly
Ketchum for CBI
mobile: 917-617-2437
Llinstle.lvfakcfdium.coin
Ql: What processes are in place to protect the genetics purity of plant varieties?
Seed purity has been closely monitored for much longer than GMOs have been around, because
farmers are very choosy about the seed varieties they prefer. The Federal Seed Act, administered by
the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service, establishes labeling requirements for seeds, including the
percent of a certain genetic variety in a seed bag. With respect to GM traits, the trait itself also is
listed, so that farmers know which trait they are purchasing.
Seine farmers grow crops not for food but to supply seeds for seed companies, These certified seed
growers follow very strict practices to ensure purity of the seeds, in accordance with the Federal
Seed Act, These include isolating the seed crop from other genetic varieties of that crop; keeping
crops from previous years from growing as volunteer plants; cleaning planting equipment and
keeping equipment for seed production separate from equipment for crop production. In addition,
post-harvesting handling, storage, and transport are important factors in maintaining the genetic
integrity of each variety. These measures are important for seeds for all types of crops, both GM and
non-GM.
For more information on the various practices that growers use to preserve the genetic integrity of a
seed variety: h Lip://wvvvv.ainseed,(n e/pdfsyASTA-Coesistencel J rcnlucUonl J racUces.|)df and
hup://vvwvv\a niseetlairu /tKlIs /ASTA-Ct^exisleticcFniHinlesaMlf
For more information about certified seed production for specific crops in different countries, visit
the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies website at www.aoscii.urL .
Q2: Is it possible to create organic seeds from GMOs in the future?
if we turn the clock ahead 20 years 1 think this is where we'll be. Organic production has nothing to
do with genetics— it is production and handling techniques for plant products as outlined here
hi Ip; //www.us d.L guv/wps/ p mTul/usLla/usdahonitThuwhi -ORGANIC CERTIR CATK) . Scientists
and consumers of all backgrounds appreciate the aim of growing more food witli fewer inputs and
less environmental impact. We're all on the same page there.
Transgenic technology is a complement to, not in opposition of, organic production techniques. Bt
crops have cut the use of pesticides, The future promises crops that may make better use of fertilizer,
resist disease, and perhaps can produce more food with less labor and fuel, These benefits may be
augmented when Learned with effective organic production techniques.
However, the National Organic Program (NOP) would need to revise its rather arbitrary policy that
transgenic (GMQ) materials not be allowed within organic certification guidelines. The original
policy was based on public feedback, not science. This remains the policy. There would need to be a
radical change in thinking, but with education and letting science dictate decisions, it will happen.
Q3: How can biotech seeds help with climate change and environmental swings?
GM seeds can play an important role in helping world agriculture adapt to climate change. Certain
GM seeds give plants protection against insects that leads to stronger root systems from less insect
damage, This will enable these crops to absorb the available moisture better and allow them to grow
in drier conditions. GM seeds are also being used to grow plants that require less rainfall and still
produce good harvests due to traits that impart drought resistance. In addition, herbicide-tolerant
crops developed with biotechnology have significantly increased the use of no-till agriculture,
preserving precious soil moisture.
Another way in which GM seeds are helping with climate change is the reduction in the number of
tractor trips through the farm field due to better seed technology. By making crops herbicide-
tolerant and insect-resistant, it means farmer need fewer trips through the field to control these
pests. This decreases the use of fuel and greenhouse gas emissions, thus promoting less impact on
climate change.
Q4: Can you give any examples of how biotech seeds have improved sustainability?
Herbicide- tolerant crops have encouraged Farmers to practice no-till farming. In conventional
farming, the fields are plowed ("tilled") every year to get rid of weeds. Because of the superior weed
control from GM crops, farmers now have to till much less often. This has led to improved soil health
and water retention, reduced runoff, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.
(National Academy of Sciences, Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the
United States, 2010) hnm//wwusnmedu/cainlofl.php^
Insect-resistant crops have greatly reduced the amount of insecticide that has to be applied to insect-
protected crops. It's estimated that an astounding 600 million pounds LESS active ingredient of
insecticide has been used in the United States because of the use of CM crops, significantly reducing
farmers' costs and environmental footprint,
[Brookes and Barfoot, Key environmental impacts of global GM crop use 1996-2011, in GM Crops
and Food, 4/26/2013] lHm://wwvv.nnmiiiomirs.nMik/iHlt72Q
In developing countries, the increased production from GM seeds has allowed small farmers to
generate more income off of the same amount ofland, thus reducing the practice of cutting down
forest for more cropland.
This message is intended only Ibr the person or entity to which it is addressed and may eontain^
information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message or the information herein by anyone other than the intended
recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,
is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please destroy it immediately and
notify the sender.
GO
4
answers
ASK
YOUR QUESTIONS
EXPLORE
THE BASICS
STUDIES
ANO ARTICLES
DIG ABOUT
DEEPER G MO ANSWERS
Search Entire Site
@OO®0
Ask Us Anything About GMOs!
How is your question answered?
Moderator Updates
favorite question!
Click here to learn more about
the independent & company
experts answering your
questions.
I am interested in learning more about how biotech seeds improve sustainability. Can you provide examples?
Question Submitted By. SM1791 from San Francisco, CA
' Questions submitted to GMO Answers appear as written at the time of submission. Questions are reviewed to ensure they
conform with our house rules, but are never edited or altered by GMO Answers.
Notification Preferences
Professor and Chairman,
Horticultural Sciences
Department, University of
Florida
A; Expert Answer
By: Kevin Folta, Profess or and Chairman. Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida on Sunday, 10/13/2013
5: 16 pm
Herbicide-tolerant crops have encouraged farmers to practice no-till farming. In conventional farming, the fields are plowed
C tilled"] to control weeds. Because of the superior weed control from GM crops, farmers now have to till much less often.
This has led to improved soil health and water retention, reduced runoff, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions from
agriculture. [National Academy of Sciences, Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United
States. 2010] http 7/www. na p.e d u/catal og. p hp?record _i d = 12804
Insect-resistant crops have greatly reduced the amount of insecticide that has to be applied to insect-protected crops. It's
estimated that an astounding 600 million pounds LESS active ingredient of insecticide has been used in the United States
because of the use of GM crops, significantly reducing farmers' costs and environmental footprint. (Brookes and Bar foot,
Key environmental impacts of global GM crop use 1996-2011, in GM Crops and Food, 4/26/2013)
http://w ww. pgeconomscs.co.uk/pdf/2013globalimp2ctstudyfinai re port. pdf)
In developing countries, the increased production from GM seeds has allowed small farmers to generate more income off of
the same amount of land, thus reducing the practice of cutting down forest for more cropland.
The greatest gains are yet to come. GM plants with more efficient use of nitrogen and other important nutrients mean less
fertilizer will be needed, saving farmers money, and less fertilizer ends up in the environment. As mentioned previously,
GM plants are available to withstand moderate water deficits. In the near future these same traits may allow the same
yields or better while consuming less water. Such technologies have been demonstrated as effective in the laboratory and
in field contexts.
Going forward, as we apply what we learning about organic, I o w- input and sustainable production practices to GM crops,
we'll see comparable or improved performance with less cost and environmental impact.
Kevin Folta is a professor in
and chairman of the
Horticultural Sciences
Department at the University
of Florida, Gainesville. He got
his Ph.D. in Molecular Biology
from University of Illinois at
Chicago in 1998, and he has
worked at University of
Wisconsin before settling in at
University of Florida. Dr. Folta
researches the functional
genomics of small fruit crops,
the plant transformation, the
genetic basis of flavors,
and studies at
photo morphogenesis and
flowering. He has also written
many publications and edited
books, most recently was the
2011 Genetics, Genomics, and
B reeding of Berries. Dr. Folta
received the NSF CAREER
Award, an HHMI Mentoring
Award and was recognized
as "University of Florida
Foundation Research
Professor" in 2010.
Topic: Impact on Environment 2 Comments | Add Comment
D SHARE
From: REDING, H KEITH (AG/1000) rmailto:h.keith.redinq@monsanto.coml
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 5:49 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: RE: have you seen this?
Sorry to ruin your day. I thought that a letter to the editor from a credible science communicator
may be appropriate. ©
Keith
From: Folta, Kevin M. [ mailto:kfolta@UFL.EDU1
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 4:48 PM
To: REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000]
Subject: RE: have you seen this?
Keith,
That is horrible. This needs a strong response.
Thanks for the heads up.
Kevin
From: REDING, H KEITH (AG/1000) [ mailto:h.keith.redinq@monsanto.coml
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 2:44 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: have you seen this?
http://www.elle.com/beautv/health-fitness/health-issues-caused-bv-gmo-com
Keith Reding, Ph.D.
314-694-6615 W
Kevin Folta - Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department at University of Florida
As an independent academic scientist I'm simply appalled by this level of fear mongering. GM technology
offers no more risk than traditional breeding and that is a hard statement by the world's foremost
scientific and medical bodies. This article is just inc orrect throughout. HUNDREDS of independent studies
have been performed. The only ones that show evidence of harm are never repeated, are activist driven,
and are highly criticized as bad science by independent academic scientists. The whole thing on allergies
here is wrong. Not only is it possible to assess for allergenicity, it has been done with no evidence of
interaction with human sera. I could go on for hours after reading this. I'm glad the author's symptoms
dissipated, but she's blaming the wrong problem. There are 40.000 genes in corn. Most hybrids contain
genetic mixes with tons of gene variants. Is it corn, certain hybrids? How can inserting a transgene even
cause a problem mechanistically? The blame of GMO is part of the popular myth that this sound
technology is problematic. Very sad. If you don't believe me. write an email to any plant scientist at any
university anywhere in the world. Don't make decisions based on fear. Make them based on science.
Like ■ Reply - iS 83 - Jul 24. 201 3 3:03pm
From:
Alicia Maluafiti - HCIA <director@hciaonline.com>
Sent time: 07/11/2013 02 : 45:04 PM
To: Renee Kestcr <reneekester@mac,com>; Jon Entine <jon@jonentine.com>
Karl Haro von Mogel <karl@inoculatedmmd.com>; Steve Savage <savage.sd@gmail.com>; Kevin M. M. Folta <kevinfolta@gmail.com>; Folta,
Cc:
Kevin M.; Kirby Kester <kirby.kester@basf.com>
Subject: Kauai Conf Call #
I just want everyone to know that we ARE moving forward on this!
So I defer to Renee as the lead but we will need to craft out short term
{leading up to July 31 hearing) and longer term strategy (post July 31)
using the Biofortified boys (do you mind if I call you that? I think I'm
the oldest of the bunch) :0)
So please know that you are part of our overall public education strategy
and specifically — how do we use your valuable time wisely while you are
here in Hawaii {besides hitting the beaches!) I'd love to hear your
thoughts . Aloha !
Alicia Maluafiti, Executive Director
Hawaii Crop Improvement Association
Growing the Future of Worldwide Agriculture in Hawaii
www . hciaonline . com
Original Message
From: Renee Kester [mailto : reneekester@mac . com]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 8:23 AM
To: Jon Entine
Cc: Karl Haro von Mogel; Steve Savage; Kevin M. M. Folta; Kevin M. Folta;
Kirby Kester; Alicia Maluafiti
Subject: Kauai Conf Call #
Ha! For once something moved faster than I expected,,.
Dial in: 1 866 206 9743
Code: 808 337 2065#
Again 2pm Hawaii time*
Mahalo,
Renee Kester
808-651-5672
On Jul 11, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Renee Kester wrote:
> Okay, we are confirmed for 2pm Hawaii time conference call. 5pm west
coast, 7 pm midwest, 8pm east coast, Kirby will be setting up the
conference call through his office at BASF. Currently he is in a meeting
and will send out the call in # after his meeting is adjourned.
>
> Looking forward to speaking with you all.
>
> Mahalo,
> Renee
>
> On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:51 AM, Jon Entine wrote:
>
» Yes, let us know exact time and call in #.
>>
» On Jul 11, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Karl Haro von Mogel wrote:
»
»> Yes, I can do 7 pm Central (2 ppm HI, 8 pm EST) . A little less
convenient for me, but happy to accomodate !
>» Karl
>>>
>>> On 7/11/2013 11:36 AM, Renee Kester wrote:
>>>> Great to hear from everyone! Would everyone still be available if we
pushed it back 2 hours so that Kevin could join?
»»
>>>> Mahalo,
>»> Renee
»»
>»> On Jul 11, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Jon Entine wrote:
>»>
>>>>> Works for me. #?
»»>
>>>>> Jon Entine
>>>» . Exec Director, Genetic Literacy Project:
>>>>> geneticliteracyproject.org . Sr Fellow, Center for Health & Risk
»»> Communication, George Mason University
»»> (513) 319-8388
»>»
»>>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 3:47 AM, Renee Kester wrote:
»»>
>>>>>> Aloha Jon, Karl, Kevin and Steven,
»>>»
»»» First off I would like to thank you for all of the support you have
given us over here in Hawaii with regards to our recent legislative battles,
it means a lot to all of us over here.
»»>>
»»» i realize this is short notice but I am hoping you would all be
available for a conference call at noon Hawaii time tomorrow (thursday
7/11), I believe that would be 3pm west coast, 5pm midwest, 6pm east coast.
Hoping to get you all on the line to officially discuss strategy and your
availability to support us with a trip over to Hawaii for the next hearing
on the 31st or the one after. We have lots of ideas to keep you all busy!
Again, sorry for the short notice and I hope you are all available tomorrow,
I think we can be somewhat flexible on the exact time of the call if we need
to nudge it one way or the other to accommodate you.
»»»
>>>>>> Many Mahalos,
>>>>>> Renee Kester
»»» 808-742-1934
»»
»>
»
>
From:
Alicia Maluafiti - HCIA <dircctor@hciaonline.com>
07/24/2013 04:00:18 AM
1 o: Steve Savage <savagc.sd@gmail,com>; Folta, Kevin M.
rizzo@nvecomersstrategies.com; Kirby Kester <kirby.kester@basf.com>; Renee Kester <reneekester@mac.com>; McFarland, Scott
<McFartand@dow.com>
Subject: Breakfast with Kauai Business Council
OK - you are on for breakfast on Tuesday, July 30, 8:30 am (location tbd). You each get 10 minutes to
present. The goal is to get the Council to oppose the bill (publicly - with written and/or oral testimony and
maybe even an op/ed! Woweel). So the time will be spent 1) educating them about the flaws in the bill and
its impact on the island, 2) giving them peace of mind about the pesticides being used and the crops being
grown, and 3) increasing awareness about the overall economic contribution of the seed farms on Kauai.
So splitting this up:
1. Pesticides (Steve)
2. Ag Biotechnology (Kevin)
3. Seed Farmers (Kirby)
This is a working breakfast meeting. So probably no video projector but possibly handouts would help. I am
cc'ing Frank Rizzo to see if he has time to attend as well.
Scott or Kirby - HCIA is picking up the bill for this breakfast. Can one of you take care of this?
Alicia Maluafiti, Executive Director
Hawaii Crop Improvement Association
Growing the Future of Worldwide Agriculture in Hawaii
www. hciaonline. com
rrom: Goldstein, Cindy <cindy.goldstcin@pioneer.com>
Sent time: 07/29/2013 03:49:22 PM
kirby.kester@basf.com, kris@beckercommuntcations.com; jerryo@hawaii.edu; McFarland, Scott (SE) <McFarland@:dow com \ Frank Rizzo
* o: <nzzo@fivecomcrsstrategies com>; Steve Savage <savage.sd@gmail.com>; Folta, Kevin M . Alicia Maluafiti - HCIA <director@hciaonline.com>;
dcnnisgonsal ■ denmsgonsal ogmail com>
Subject: Expect Gary Hooser to try' to insert himself at forums
Just a heads up to everyone involved with the forum. Gary Hooser may try to insert himself and
take the floor as part of our forums. Others may have heard the same and suggest the moderators
and panelists are prepared to handle Gary Hooser trying to take over for his own purposes. Not
sure if Tim Bynum plans to do the same, but have seen him do this at other meetings.
Cindy
Cindy Goldstein
DuPont Pioneer
Industry Relations Manager. Hawaii
office: 808-637-0 1 00 ext 1 17
cell: 808-722-7819
From: McFarland, Scott (SE) [mailto:McFarland@dow.com]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:56 AM
To: Goldstein, Cindy; kirby.kester@basf.com; kris@beckercommunications.com; 'Frank Rizzo'; Steve
Savage; Kevin M. Folta; Alicia Maluafiti - HCIA
Subject: RE: Breakfast 8:30 am with Kauai Business Council
Yep, this breakfast is Steve and Kevin's agenda for Tuesday morning at 8:30am
From: Goldstein, Cindy f mailto:cindy.qoldstein@pioneer.com1
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:43 AM
To: kirbv.kester@basf.com ; McFarland, Scott (SE); kris@beckercommunications.com
Subject: Breakfast 8:30 am with Kauai Business Council
I am not sure who is organizing the event with Randy Francisco and the Kauai Business Council,
but Randy passed along information that you may, or may not, already have. The breakfast with the
speakers and others participating is from 8:30 to 10 at the Aston Aloha Beach Resort in the back
private dining room area. Expect 15 to 20 people.
PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 31, 2013
A public hearing of the Council of the County of Kauai was called to order by
Gary L. Hooser, Chair, Economic Development (Sustainability / Agriculture / Food /
Energy) & Intergovernmental Relations Committee, on Wednesday, July 31, 2013,
at 1:30 p.m., at the Kaua‘i Veterans Center, 3215 Kapule Highway, Lihu'e, and the
presence of the following was noted:
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura
Honorable Mel Rapozo
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Gary L. Hooser
Honorable Tim Bynum, Ex-Officio Member
Honorable Jay Furfaro, Ex-Officio Member
The Clerk read the notice of the public hearing on the following:
“Bill No. 2491 - A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE
KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A NEW
ARTICLE 22 TO CHAPTER 22, RELATING TO PESTICIDES AND
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS,”
which was passed on first reading and ordered to print by the Council of the County
of Kaua‘i on June 26, 2013, and published in The Garden Island newspaper on
July 26, 2013.
The following communications were received for the record:
1. Tchouboukjian, Tiffany, July 31, 2013
2. Whitlock, Ned, July 31, 2013
3. Wooton, Ryan, July 31, 2013
4. Barca, Nicolai, July 31, 2013
5. Ching, Jon, July 31, 2013
6. Oso, Barame, July 31, 2013
7. Jaskova, Marketa, July 31, 2013
8. Errico, Vera, July 31, 2013
9. Meharg, Amy, July 31, 2013
10. Bachcater, Ricardo, July 31, 2013
ll.Schwed, Craig, July 31, 2013
12.Bronstein, Eric, July 31, 2013
13.Scheraldo, Vinny, July 31, 2013
14. Thorne, Cherie, July 31, 2013
15. Hopman, Arius and Sterling, July 31, 2013
16. Brun, Arthur, July 31, 2013
17. Brontser, Margery, July 31, 2013
18. Folta, Kevin, July 31, 2013
19. Savage, Steven, July 31, 2013
20. Watanabe, Cade, July 31, 2013
21. Murashige, Conrad, July 31, 2013
22. Williams, Greg, July 31, 2013
BILL NO. 2491
2
JULY 31, 2013
23. Iona, Stephanie, July 31, 2013
24. Beall, Matthew, July 31, 2013
25. Trujillo, James, July 31, 2013
26. Smith, Dane, July 31, 2013
27. L’Hote, Yoshi, July 31, 2013
28. Campbell, Eric, July 31, 2013
29. Barnes, Walter, July 31, 2013
30. Kilar, Kyler, July 31, 2013
31. Wyse, Thomas, July 31, 2013
32. Ma, Kristen, July 31, 2013
33. Waimea Nurses and Medical Assistants (See List), July 31, 2013
34. Rojas-Garcia, Gerardo, July 31, 2013
35.0yama, Ryan, July 31, 2013
36. Heckman, Bruce, July 31, 2013
37. Davis, Steve, July 31, 2013
38. Petition to Support Bill No. 2491 (See List of Signatures), July 31, 2013
39. Kelley III, Lindsay, July 31, 2013
40.Semeff, Stephanie, July 31, 2013
41. Pope, Antonio, July 31, 2013
42. Tausend, Peter, July 31, 2013
43. Valdez, Pablo, July 31, 2013
44. Price, Evan, July 31, 2013
45. Rita, Leslie, July 31, 2013
46. Barton, David, July 31, 2013
47. Kuehu, Jason, July 31, 2013
48.Shimatsu, Jaqcueleen, July 31, 2013
49.Shimatsu, Rodney, July 31, 2013
50. Riha, Robert, July 31, 2013
51. Beckett, Wendy, July 31, 2013
52. Raelson, Jim, July 31, 2013
53. Rogoff, Steve, July 31, 2013
54. Chatkupt, S., July 31, 2013
55. Wichert, John, July 31, 2013
The hearing proceeded as follows:
Chair Hooser: Before we begin, I would like to address a
few housekeeping measures. Can people in the back hear — raise your hand if you
can hear, yes? Okay, great. It is my intention... it is this Committee’s intention
that we will take public testimony and conclude this Public Hearing at
approximately 10:30 p.m. The last Kaua'i Bus returning to Vidinha Stadium will
leave this building at 11:30 p.m. For those who decide to walk back to your
vehicles, please exercise caution as you are doing so at your own risk. For those of
you here with us inside the building, there are restrooms and a drinking fountain in
the back of the room. Please be considerate with one another when you return to
your seats after getting up to use the facilities. For those of you outside on the
Kaua'i Veterans Center’s grounds, where there are speakers, which you should be
able to hear me today — the County has provided portable toilets for you to use. This
building has reached capacity. Staff will not permit any further entry into the
building at this time. People outside who require restrooms must use the outside
portable toilets and we will not allow standing room or saving seats inside.
Now for the way the business will be conducted — we have a short stand-up
line that you see against the wall. We have invited five (5) people from the various
BILL NO. 2491
3
JULY 31, 2013
sides of the issue, a total of ten (10) people, to take turns offering differing
viewpoints at the beginning of the hearing. We will begin by hearing from these
people, immediately followed by the line of people who are behind them from the
prior hearing of the first reading. When this line is nearing its end, we will make
an announcement, and then we will begin to line up speakers based on rows of
seats. We are going to start in the front of the room, closest to the stage right here,
and we are going to go row by row, all the way to the back. Please follow the
Council Staff who will be giving you instructions. Please wait for the Staff to assist
you. We will go all the way to the back of the room by row. Anyone who wishes to
give testimony will be told to form a line. If you do not want to present testimony,
you are welcome to remain in your seat. Please keep track of when your row will be
called next because that will be your opportunity to testify. If you need to use the
restroom, please take your own breaks as needed and be courteous to those around
you. If you are only here to observe, and obviously you are welcome to do so, and do
not want to speak, you can remain in your seat for the entire duration of the Public
Hearing if you want to. However, please be aware it would be helpful for someone
waiting outside whenever a seat vacancy occurs because Staff may periodically offer
to bring people from outside in who want to observe and not speak at this time. For
those not present when the row is called, and you are not in your seat, you miss
your opportunity to speak. You will have to wait until the end of the Public Hearing
in order to speak.
Everyone will be given an opportunity to speak at some point. Please pay
attention when it is your row’s turn. Based on the amount of people here in
attendance, because not all attendees can come in here, we will first process
everyone in here who wants to speak, and then we will reach outside and let those
people come in and form a line to also testify. As testimony from those inside is
occurring, Staff will periodically attempt to locate vacant seats and as people leave
the Public Hearing, make those seats available to people who want to observe only.
We will not be taking breaks for the duration of this Public Hearing, except every
four (4) hours to take a tape change. It takes five (5) minutes to change the
videotape. Those five (5) minutes is not to get up and walk around because it takes
too long. Our objective is to allow as many people — you got up early and took your
time to come out here and we want to hear what you have to say, and so we are
trying to give as many people as possible that time, which is why this meeting is
structured the way it is.
For those that are in the building, you will not be permitted to leave and
reenter. We need to keep track where everyone is, so if you leave you will need to
stay outside. This event; this Public Hearing today is taking a tremendous amount
of work by Council Staff. It was originally scheduled for Kaua‘i Community College
and as most of you know, that option was taken away from us. It was double work
for the Council Staff. On behalf of the Council and the community, I want you to
help me thank the Council Staff for all of their work on putting this together.
Thank you. They have spent hours and hours, and sleepless nights worrying about,
fretting about, and planning the details. I ask for your patience because as we move
forward, there may be things that we did not think about, and there are a lot of
people here, so I ask for your patience. Please hold the applause in the future if you
can because your applause or cheering will slow things down. Please be considerate
of all the speakers, even those of differing viewpoints. We will not be allowing any
disruptions. We cannot afford disruptions. It is not fair to everyone who is here so
we will not be allowing disruptions. Be considerate of the people waiting behind
you. When possible, be brief. If other people have already made your point, you do
not have to take your full three (3) minutes. You can say whatever you want to say,
BILL NO. 2491
4
JULY 31, 2013
and then leave and let somebody else speak. Finally, we should applaud the Kaua‘i
Veterans Center because they have really stepped up to the plate, last minute, to let
us be here today. Let us thank them. They really came through. They have faith
in us as a Council and in our community that we are going to conduct ourselves in a
way that we are all proud of and respect their property here. Please honor that.
Because the purpose of the Public Hearing is to hear what you have to say,
we are going to be asking Councilmembers to limit their questions. This is a Public
Hearing. We are here to listen to what you have to say. If you ask us to direct
questions, we will not normally be answering that. We will take notes and answer
those later if you provide E-mails. It is to hear what you have to say. We will have
another Committee Meeting on Monday, August 5 th . There will be an opportunity
for vigorous discussion and dialogue there. There may be some questions but we
are asking Councilmembers to please refrain from asking questions, as much as
possible, again, to allow more people to speak. We will now begin to allow speakers
to approach the microphone. You must state your full name for the record. It is
helpful if say if you “support” or “oppose.” Every speaker will have three (3)
minutes to speak in the beginning. We have the ability to amend our rules or to
suspend our rules and change that time period, but we are going to start with three
(3) minutes. We are going to try to get everybody. As the evening wears on, it is
possible that the majority of the Council may decide that, “Listen, we have heard a
lot. Let us shorten that time, whether it is two (2) minutes or a minute and a half
(1.5),” but that decision has not been made. We will try to get through as many
people as possible. Before we call the first speaker, I would like to recognize the
Mayor of the County of Kaua‘i, Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr. for joining us today.
Mayor, please stand-up. I have spoken to the Mayor personally on this issue and I
know it is very important to him as it is to many people in the community. I
appreciate him being here today. We would appreciate it if you provide your contact
information so that we can make it to Councilmembers who wish to follow-up and
respond. Mr. Clerk, could you call the first speaker?
JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, Deputy County Clerk: The first speaker is
Steve Savage.
STEVE SAVAGE: Hi, my name is Steve Savage. I am an
Agricultural Scientist. I have been here for about a week. I want to thank everyone
for their hospitality for the week that I have been here and particularly thankful
that you would let me speak as a Californian here. I have been working in
Agriculture for about thirty-five (35) years. During that time, I have considered it a
great honor to know all sorts of farmers from lots of places around the world and
enjoyed meeting many farmers here this week. In all of that time, I have never met
a farmer of any type, large, small, conventional, organic, whatever, who did not
have to sometimes use pesticides. They never did that because they enjoyed that, it
is just that the reality is there are pests. I realize there is a lot of controversy about
some of the pesticides used on the island. All I would like to do is somewhere some
information, which is available from public resources, websites, and whatnot, and I
would be happy to share with anyone on how to find that information.
The pesticides that are on something that are called the “Restricted Use
List,” it is not restricted in the sense — that it is a unique set of things. They are
restricted in who can use them and who can use them is restricted to the people
with the highest level of training. Everybody who uses pesticides commercially has
to have training but if you use these, you have to have the highest level. If you go
through the list of those things and see what they are, they are first of all, not really
BILL NO. 2491
5
JULY 31, 2013
unusual things for other crops. For instance, if I look at the California Use Data in
2011, two point eight (2.8) million pounds of the same things were used on more
than one hundred fifty (150) crops in California. The things that are used here
particularly, I think people have focused a lot on what is used in the Corn Seed
Industry. If I look at the data from the United Stated Department of Agriculture
(USDA) about what gets used where the tens of millions of acres of corn are grown
in the Midwest, it is basically the same list of things and at very similar use rates
throughout the year. It is not extraordinary chemicals and it is not extraordinary
rates. The reason things are on the Restricted Use List can vary, and some could be
on that list because they are particularly toxic and they require particular care for
the person spraying them, for workers, or for anybody in the area. That is actually
a very small part of what is on the list here. Most of the things that we are talking
about here are herbicides that are not particularly toxic to people. In fact
ninety-eight percent (98%) of the active ingredients used here are less toxic than the
caffeine in your normal coffee, gram for gram. Again, there is a lot of information
about these pesticides that can sort of demystify them a bit. I guess the last thing I
would say that it has been fifty-one (51) years since the publication of “Silent
Spring,” and that book initiated an environmental movement that actually
accomplished a tremendous amount...
Chair Hooser: Can you please summarize?
Mr. Savage: I think we are not talking about the 1960s
when we are talking about the chemicals here. There are a lot of rules. There is a
lot of regulation in place.
Chair Hooser: Thank you very much. We have a question
from Councilmember Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: Dr. Savage, I know you will not be at our
Committee Meeting. I have two (2) questions that I would like you to answer, not
now, but later. I just want to get on the record. I would like to have any factual
information from you relevant to the findings in the Bill. I would also like you — on
a panel last night, you said that Restricted Use Pesticides are sometimes labeled as
such because of danger in water.
Mr. Savage: Right.
Ms. Yukimura: I would like you to submit the proposed or
the required buffers actually based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s
requirements for each of the pesticides that are on the list.
Mr. Savage: Okay.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you very much.
Chair Hooser: Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember.
Next speaker, please. Please walk up while your name is being called.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Chris Broussard, followed by Kevin Folta.
CHRIS BROUSSARD: Greetings to the County Council. Gary
Hooser, Tim Bynum, and all concerned citizens of Kaua'i who have taken the time
to be at this forum. Thank you for allowing me to have a moment to speak to this
BILL NO. 2491
6
JULY 31, 2013
issue. My name is Chris Broussard. I have lived and worked here since 1990. I am
here to testify in support of Bill No. 2491 and in doing so, I wear two (2) hats. I am
the Vice President of the Hawai‘i Nurses Association (HNA). I want this Committee
and all present to know that the nurses of Hawai i fully support the passing of this
Bill. Protecting our citizens, water, land, and ocean should be the number one (1)
priority. As a Registered Nurse (RN) having worked at Wilcox Hospital for over
twenty (20) years, I am very concerned over these hazardous chemicals that are
being indiscriminately spread on this island, exposing those of us who are most
vulnerable to their effects. I have seen patients of all ages who suffer various
health problems, some very serious, after being inadvertently exposed to these
chemicals that the Ag companies are assuring us are “safe.” These patients come to
our hospital suffering from respiratory problems and difficulty breathing, and some
have neurological problems. Some cannot walk steady. They have tremors and
they have overall body weakness. Their blood tests can be abnormal. They have
problems with some of their organs; their kidneys and livers are not functioning
properly. Some of these patients have been shipped to 0‘ahu for further treatment.
Some of them may never fully return to their prior state of health due to this
exposure. We note that these chemicals are especially harmful to young children
due to the fact that their bodies are growing and developing at a fast pace, and that
continual exposure over time will most surely lead to other types of illnesses,
possibly leukemia and brain tumors.
As a health care worker, the other alarming fact to me is that when a person
comes into our hospital needing care for chemical exposure, we do not even know
what to treat them for because the disclosure from the Ag companies as to what is
being sprayed into the air is hidden to all us. The Ag companies refuse to say what
they are spraying around our schools, homes, and near our streams. This is absurd
to me. Knowing what the chemical is and being able to properly treat the patient is
absolutely imperative in order to ensure a successful outcome for that patient.
What is truly at the core of this issue is our right to know what we are being
exposed to that can cause us harm. What is drifting through the air that we
breathe? What is placed in our soil and our water, that eventually is put into our
bodies by the food we eat, the fish we catch, and the waters we swim in. The fact
that corporations want to hide this information sends a very obvious message:
“There is something worth hiding.” Nowhere in this defensiveness is a stated
corporate concern for transparency for the truth, for caring about the aina and its
peoples. I am, and HNA, whole heartedly support all the concerned people of Kaua‘i
and the right to know what chemicals are being introduced to our air, water, and
soil. Thank you.
Chair Hooser: Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Please, I know people are very excited and passionate on both sides, but we really
need to move through and it holds things up. We can cheer inside but let us move it
forward. Thank you.
KEVIN FOLTA: My name is Kevin Folta. I am the Chairman
of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida and a
Professor in the Department. I was asked to come here to talk about biotechnology.
I should state upfront that I have not been compensated for any testimony.
Biotechnology and the way that it is out framed inside Bill No. 2491 — the way that
it is framed in Bill No. 2491 is inconsistent with what we know about the technology
and its safety. We have been able to look at biotechnology or what we call
“Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Crops” or what we refer to as “Transgenic
Crops” are some of the best studied and most analyzed plants on this planet. They
BILL NO. 2491
7
JULY 31, 2013
are planted over ninety percent (90%) of the acreage of corn, canola, cotton, and soy
in the Continental United States and many other places in the world. The
technology is safe and is used because it helps farmers compete. It allows them to
use les pesticide, as much as sixty percent (60%) less pesticide as estimated by the
USDA. All of these are public statistics. Some of the provisions of Bill No. 2491 will
severely curtail the use and deployment of biotechnology throughout the world
because Kaua'i is a winter nursery. This is the place where you can grow three (3)
or four (4) seasons a year of a given crop to accelerate breeding and opportunities to
improve genetics. Some of that happens to contain biotechnology or transgenic
seeds. The moratorium that is presented would make it almost impossible for any
of these companies to do business here. Forcing the companies to work and citing
closures would be impossible because of the nature of this work. The issues that are
concerns about pollination and escape of the materials have really been shown to be
mitigating strictly by proper planting by smaller zones and understanding how far
pollen really drifts, as well as being sensitive to those plants in the environment
that they can outcross with that do not exist here.
In addition to all of those types of concerns as they were listed — when you go
to the idea of disclosure by disclosing where these crops are located precisely, you
open them up to vandalism, but also for escape because people opposed to the
technology would be compelled to find the seeds and distribute them elsewhere to
cause harm to the companies that have it. I will conclude by saying that I do not
really wear a red shirt or blue shirt. I am not here being pro or anti but I am here
because of science. Science is not a democracy. It is not about how many people
stand up for it or against it. It is about what the facts and the truth really are. This
is a good, sound technology as evidenced by its safe use for over fifteen (15) years.
Chair Hooser: Thank you very much. Councilmember
Yukimura has a question for you.
Ms. Yukimura: Dr. Folta, last night you talked about the
rats experiment that was used to say that GMO foods are damaging. I just want a
yes or no answer, if possible. You showed that the control rat had tumors, as well
as the ones that were treated with GMO?
Mr. Folta: Yes.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you.
Chair Hooser: Thank you. Next speaker, please. Please
speak close to the microphone. I am being asked to instruct everyone to speak close
to the microphone. Thank you.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Next speaker is Dr. Shabert, followed by
Margery Bronster.
JUDY SHABERT: My name is Dr. Judy Shabert. I am a
Physician, Obstetrician/Gynecologist, Nutritionist, and Public Health Advocate with
a degree in Public Health from Harvard University. I have published medical
scientific research. My husband and I currently farm north of Anahola. I am in full
support of Bill No. 2491. In the 1970s, while a medical student at the University of
Hawaii, a young woman was transferred into the obstetrical high-risk unit and
delivered a grossly malformed baby, who deformities were incompatible with life.
She had exposure to glue and paint in early pregnancy. In the 1970s, we barely
BILL NO. 2491
64
JULY 31, 2013
NOMI CARMONA: Aloha Councilmembers and Chair. My name
is Nomi Carmona. I am the President and founder of a local nonprofit called “Babes
Against Biotech.” We have eight thousand seven hundred fifty (8,750) members
since we founded just a year ago. Our first march was one hundred fifty (150) and
our last march was two thousand five hundred (2,500) in Waikiki. We have a reach
of about four hundred fifty thousand (450,000) in social media internationally,
including all of our partners. What we do is campaign for funds and notify the
public of Legislatures who are voting in favor of GMO corporations. We actively
campaign against them and support those who have the integrity to stand up to
these companies who are poisoning the ‘aina. The FDA, EPA, and USDA will not
protect us. They are full of GMO Lobbyists from Syngenta, Monsato, et cetera.
Those are the same Lobbyists who are here today against our disclosure and the
same ones who fought to strike your ability to protect our life and health at the
County level. If you remove the Federal subsidies that GMO crops receive, organic
farming is three (3) times cheaper than GMO farming. You do not have to buy
chemicals, pesticides, and fertilizers. Permaculture is perfect just as nature made
it. Can we really afford to sacrifice all of this experimental Ag land where we are
importing ninety percent (90%) of our food? I highly doubt it. Our State
Legislators, as of August 2012, had accepted over three hundred ninety-one
thousand dollars ($391,000) from GMO companies and Lobbyists. I call that
“selling out.” The giant chemical companies that this Bill does affect do not pay
General Excise Taxes or Enterprise Zone Taxes so we are basically just allowing
them to do whatever they want at the cost of our health. Pesticides have been
linked to sterility, miscarriages, birth defects, cancer, eye problems, skin disorders,
and kidney damage, but the most important thing that I would like to bring forth
for the workers who spray these pesticides is that the National Academy’s report,
depending on the dose of pesticides can cause a range of adverse affects including
cancer, acute and chronic injury to the nervous system, lung damage, reproductive
dysfunction, and things that you have heard already. The most important thing I
want to point out is that one (1) of six (6) children of people who sprays pesticides
for a living... occupational hazards... one (1) of six (6) kids whose parents sprays
pesticides will get brain cancer before the age six (6). Do you really think these
companies are telling you the truth? Do you think I am just doing this for fun? I
have given up my whole life to stop these companies from destroying the ‘aina. I
care about the children. Everybody in here care about the children. I think these
workers have been misled. Prenatal and early childhood exposure to pesticides is
also associated with pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function, and behavioral
problems. I have a petition. I will send you a link to it. As of now, it has thirty-two
thousand (32,000) signatures to ban GMOs. We launched it in March. I want to
point out that while Kevin Folta was not paid directly by HCIA, they are taking
care of his airfare, accommodations, and food. I will go ahead and wrap it up.
Pesticide, herbicide, insecticide, suicide, homicide, genocide, and matricide of
Mother Earth. Mahalo.
Chair Hooser: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
ALLISON LUM: Aloha people of Kaua‘i. My name is Allison
Lum. I am with The Aikea Movement. This is a movement that is new. It is less
than one (1) year old. Our goal is to unite our people to build power to change our
future. I came over here this morning from 0‘ahu because I wanted to come here
and stand united with the people of Kaua'i. I am very honored and proud to stand
with these people. The question of the day is about leadership and power. I think
the people of Kaua‘i have an opportunity to play a leadership role, as does the City
Council. I want to recognize the City Council’s leadership on this issue and share a
From:
Kirby L Kester <kirby.kcsJer@basf.com>
Sent rime: 08/03/2013 04:32:08 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.; Steve Savage <savage.sd@gmail.com>
^ c: alan.mchughenlSHicr.edu
Subject: A lan McHughen visiting Kauai for Monday, August 5th hearing
Aloha Kevin and Steve,
I miss you guys already and can't thank you enough for your time on Kauai last week and professional
attention to our issue.
We just found out yesterday afternoon that the council is bringing in experts from Pesticide Action Network,
and Center for food safety to talk more about health and environmental impacts about pesticides.
Thus, not having any experts on hand to help refute them, our industry has reached out (in a rather fast
pace) to get some more support over here. One such visitor is Dr. Alan McHughen from UC Riverside.
I'm sure Dr. McHughen is in search of some background about our issue. I've sent him a link to
biofortified, and many of our social media pages that can give some perspective about bill 2491 . I was
wondering however, if at all possible, if you had some time, you could reach out with a call, or perhaps a
short email from your perspective? He will be landing on Kauai tomorrow around noon. His number is:
951-312-6878.
email is: alan.mchughen@ucr.edu
Best Regards,
Kirby Kester
Applied Genetics Manager
Phone: +1 808 337-2065, Mobile: 808-954-5305, Fax: +1 808 337-2067, E-Mail: kirby.kester@basf.com
Postal Address: BASF Plant Science LP, PO Box 127 Kekaha, Hawaii, 96752 Shipping Address: 9555
Kaumualii Hwy, Waimea, HI 96796, USA
BASF - The Chemical Company
Fromi
SACHS, ERIC S (AG/ 1000) <eric, s.Bachs@monsanto.com>
Sent time: 08/08/2013 12:06:46 AM
Prabhu Pengali (plp39@comel1.edu) <plp39@come)|.edu>; Nicholas Kflloitzandonakes (KaIaitzandonakeaN@iniuouri,odu)
<KalflitzandonakesN@missouri.edu>; David Shew (DShaw@research.nuslau.edu) OShaw@researoh.msstate.edu>; Roger Beachy
<rbeachy@biology2.wustl.edu>; Juroa, Calestous <caleatous_juma@harvard.edu>; Carl E. Pray <pray@AESOP. Rutgen.edu>; Phillips, Peter
<peler.philUpi@usask.ca>; Folta, Kevin M.; Tony Shelton <ami5@comell.edu>
Cc; SACHS, ERIC S (AG/ 1 000) <eric.i.sechs@monsanto.com>; Beth Anne Mumfbrd <bethannem@cmabuildstniit.com>
Subject: Invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Series "Perspectives on Science Matters"
All
As some of you know based on Initial contacts, I have started an important project to produce a series of
short policy briefs on Important topics In the agricultural biotechnology arena called "Perspectives on
Science Matters." Based on initial feedback, I decided to reach out to all of you collectively. I understand
and appreciate that you need me to be completely transparent and I am keenly aware that your
independence and reputations must be protected. I hope after reviewing this message you will support thi
vision and agree to author one of the briefs. Prospective authors and topics are listed below.
Individually and collectively the topics were selected because of their Influence on public policy, GM crop
regulation and consumer acceptance. The specific goal Is to frame some of the Important Issues facing
biotechnology with reasoned thoughtful messages in a way that helps thought leaders and Influences to
better appreciate the growing body of knowledge available on the safety and benefits of GM crops. The
broader goal Is to elevate the public dialogue and public policy discussion from its current over-emphasis
on perceived risks toward a broader understanding of the societal benefits of GM crops and needed
improvement in policies that are unnecessarily limiting innovation In the biotechnology arena.
I am convinced that this Initiative to publish and promote seven policy briefs on agricultural biotechnology
will spark new opportunities for outreach and engagement with policy makers and consumers. The key to
success Is participation by all of you - recognized experts and leaders with the knowledge, reputation and
communication experience needed to communicate authoritatively to the target groups. You represent ar
elite group whose credibility will be strengthened by working together. Naturally, If you would like to add a
co-author that Is entirely up to you and welcome.
To ensure that the policy briefs have the greatest Impact, the American Council for Science & Health is
partnering with CMA Consulting to drive the project. The completed policy briefs will be offered on the
ACSH web site. The series of briefs as envisioned will facilitate policy maker engagement and serve as a
basis for supplemental knowledge mobilization to a range of audiences. Both ACSH and CMA have
expertise to leverage experts, knowledge and key messages to serve the project goals. CMA Consulting wl
manage the process of producing the policy briefs. This Is an important element because Monsanto wants
the authors to communicate freely without Involvement by Monsanto. As the process develops, CMA and
ACSH will coordinate web site posting and promotion. CMA and ACSH also will merchandize the policy
briefs, Including development of media-specific materials, such as op-eds, blog postings, speaking
engagements, events, webinars, etc.
The briefs will cover a range of Important topics and themes. Some background is included below but this
Is only a suggestion. As the author, you will know how to best approach the topic and are free to do so in
your own way.
• Meeting World Challenges Carl Pray and Prabhu Pengali
Background: Explore the ways In which the use of GM crops and foods can help to address many
of the world's most pressing challenges and improve the global standard of living today and for
future generations. Specifically, discuss how GM technology helps address key policy concerns,
such as shrinking agricultural resources (land, water), food security, food affordability and
environmental sustainability. In addition, provide an overview of the challenges inherent in farming
and how GM technology addresses these challenges by providing farmers with beneficial tools for
on-farm management.
• Stifling Innovation Peter Phillips
Background: Discuss how over burdensome regulation of GM crops and food stifles the Innovate
and technological advancements important for helping support global food security and improve
overall quality of life. Consider the limitations to innovation and advancements in GM technology
that results from a regulatory process that dismisses positive scientific conclusions and assumes
molecular modification techniques carry a higher risk than other techniques used to generate new
crop varieties.
• Holding Activists Accountable Kevin Folta
Background: Demonstrate how activistfamessages and tactics regarding Genetically Modified
(GM) crops and plant biotechnology undermine worldwide efforts to ensure a safe, nutritious,
plentiful and affordable food supply using responsible and sustainable agricultural practices.
Provide examples of activist campaigns that spread false information that goes unchallenged and
results in further erosion of the public's confidence In agricultural innovation. Detail how the
Impact of these efforts If not challenged ultimately would limit consumer choice, increase food
prices, decrease farmer viability, and undermine global food security.
• GM Crop Safety Roger Beachy
Background: Address consumer and policy-maker concerns that GM crops and foods are not
adequately tested for safety compared to other crop and food products approved for human
consumption. Explain early GM crop evaluation, event selection, equivalence characterization and
product safety assessment through each step of development and regulatory assessment; and
detail how this comprehensive process meets the same stringent scientific and regulatory
standards developed for other crop and food products.
• Consequences of Rejecting GM Crops Calestous Juma
Background: Explore the issues and consequences within both developed and developing countries
that lead to rejection of or barriers to adoption of GM crop and food technology at the farmer,
consumer and regulatory level. Understand the combination of Issues; including consumer and
political resistance, food safety and public health fears, concerns about biodiversity and biological
safety, restrictive regulation, and lack of Information (or existence of misinformation) about
intellectual property rights that create barriers to GM acceptance. Detail the consequences,
including Impacts on yield, household Income, food security and social impacts, as well as on
pesticide use, health risks from pesticide exposure and on biodiversity that result.
• Sustainable Crop Systems Tony Shelton and David Shaw
Background: Detail how GM crop technology provides farmers with safe, efficient and effective
tools to manage crop pests (Insects/weeds/disease), delivers environmental benefits, increases
yields and Improves productivity. Specifically discuss the use of GM crops containing herbicide
tolerant (HT) and Insect resistance (IR) traits and the risk versus benefit of their use. In addition,
detail how educational outreach and a focus on responsible use can address public concerns about
plant resistance and the envlronmental/eco-system Impacts of GM crop technology.
• Responsible Choice ?
Background: Explore the competing issues inherent in crop production used for food versus crop
production used for fuel and highlight the role GM crop technology can play In ensuring we can
adequately increase production and balance our needs for food, feed, fiber and fuel.
Your role would be to write a short brief aimed at a broad audience, Including academics, opinion leaders,
policy-makers, regulators and other Influences. Each brief should be about 4-6 pages In length and Include
key themes and messages related to the specific topic, recommendations, and a call to action. The briefs
will serve as the foundation for further outreach and engagement to extended audiences and the broader
public via supplemental media platforms, Including allied organizations web sites, blogs and social media.
Be assured that nothing will ever be distributed under your authorship unless you have approved the
contents and use in its entirety.
I have copied Beth Anne Mumford of CMA ( wwwxmab uil ritrtistcom ) because she and her colleagues that
have been working on this Initiative, Please feel free to contact Beth Anne if you continue to have
questions. Of course you can contact me as well but I need to step aside so that I dott compromise the
project,
This will be an important project and is designed to lead to increased engagement on critical topics that are
barriers to broader use and acceptance of GM crops globally. You are the best possible messengers and I
hope you will make time to participate.
Warm Regards,
Eric
Eric Sachs
Regulatory Policy &: Scienliilc Affairs
Desk: (314) 694-1709
Mobile: (314) 637-7650
Ur i e . S .Sadi sfrr m s;i n to xu n \
This e-mail message may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and is intended to be
received only by persons entitled
to receive such information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately. Please delete it and
all attachments from any servers, hard drives or any other media. Other use of this e-mail by you is
strictly prohibited.
All e-mails and attachments sent and received are subject to monitoring, reading and archival by
Monsanto, including its
subsidiaries. The recipient of this e-mail is solely responsible for checking for the presence of
"Viruses" or other "Malware".
Monsanto, along with its subsidiaries, accepts no liability for any damage caused by any such code
transmitted by or accompanying
this e-mail or any attachment.
from: David Shaw <DShaw@research.msslale.edu>
Sent time: 08/09/2013 10:59:21 PM
Prabhu Pengali (plp39@comell.edu) <plp39@cornell.edu>; Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes(KalaitzandonakesN@missouri.edu)
r ^ t <KalaitzandonakesN@niissouri edu>; Carl E Pray <pray@AESOP Rutgcrs.edu>; Roger Bcachy <rbeachy@biology2,wustl.edu>; Tony Shelton
<ams5@corncll cdu>; Calestous' 'Juma <calestousJiima@harvard.edu>; ERIC S (AG/1000) SACHS <eric.s,sachs@monsanto.com>; Folta, Kevin
M.; Peter' 'Phillips <pctcr.phillips@usask.ca>
^• c: Beth Anne Mumford <bethannem@cmabuildstrust.com>
Subject: R e: invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Series "Perspectives on Science Matters"
Thanks for organizing this, Eric. I'm definitely interested.
David
David R. Shaw
Vice President for Research
and Economic Development
Mississippi State University
Box 6343
Mississippi State, MS 39762
662/325-3570
FAX: 662/325-8028
dshaw@research. msstate . edu
»> "SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000)" <eric.s.sachs@monsanto.com> 8/7/2013 1 1:06 PM »>
All,
As some of you know based on initial contacts, I have started an important project to produce a series of
short policy briefs on important topics in the agricultural biotechnology arena called "Perspectives on
Science Matters." Based on initial feedback, I decided to reach out to all of you collectively. I understand
and appreciate that you need me to be completely transparent and I am keenly aware that your
independence and reputations must be protected. I hope after reviewing this message you will support th<
vision and agree to author one of the briefs. Prospective authors and topics are listed below.
Individually and collectively the topics were selected because of their influence on public policy, GM crop
regulation and consumer acceptance. The specific goal is to frame some of the important issues facing
biotechnology with reasoned thoughtful messages in a way that helps thought leaders and influencers to
better appreciate the growing body of knowledge available on the safety and benefits of GM crops. The
broader goal is to elevate the public dialogue and public policy discussion from its current over-emphasis
on perceived risks toward a broader understanding of the societal benefits of GM crops and needed
improvement in policies that are unnecessarily limiting innovation in the biotechnology arena.
I am convinced that this initiative to publish and promote seven policy briefs on agricultural biotechnology
will spark new opportunities for outreach and engagement with policy makers and consumers. The key to
success is participation by all of you - recognized experts and leaders with the knowledge, reputation and
communication experience needed to communicate authoritatively to the target groups. You represent ai
elite group whose credibility will be strengthened by working together. Naturally, if you would like to add a
co-author that is entirely up to you and welcome.
To ensure that the policy briefs have the greatest impact, the American Council for Science & Health is
partnering with CMA Consulting to drive the project. The completed policy briefs will be offered on the
ACSH web site. The series of briefs as envisioned will facilitate policy maker engagement and serve as a
basis for supplemental knowledge mobilization to a range of audiences. Both ACSH and CMA have
expertise to leverage experts, knowledge and key messages to serve the project goals. CMA Consulting wi
manage the process of producing the policy briefs. This is an important element because Monsanto wants
From: Anthony M. Shelton <ams5@comell.edu>
Sent time: 08/11/2013 11:19:50 AM
David Shaw (DShaw@research.nisstate.edu) <DSliaw@research msstate.edu>; Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas <KaIaitzandonakesN@niissouri.edu>;
SACHS ERIC S (AG/1000) <eric.s sachs@monsanto com>; Roger Beachy <rbcachy@biology2 wustl.cdu>; Juma, Calcstous
To:
<calcstousJuma@harvard.cdu>; Prabhu Pingali <plp39@comcll.cdu>; Carl E. Pray <pray@AESOP Rutgers.edu>; Phillips, Peter
<pctcr.phillips@usask.ca>: Folta, Kevin M,
Cc: Beth Anne Mumford <bethannem@cinabuildstrust,com>
Subject: r 6 : invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Series "Perspectives on Science Matters"
Eric,
What is the timeline for these?
Nickolas,
Nick Storer (Dow) was heading an effort to publish an article on overburdening regulations of GM
crops. You might want to contact him.
Tony
Tony Shelton: dLedu
Professor, Department of Entomology
International Professor; Assoc. Director IP CALS
Cornell University/NYSAES, Barton Lab 416
630 W. North St., Geneva NY 14456
PH 315 787-2352 ; FAX 315 787-2326;
Cell 315 729-5932
http : //sheiton. entomology. comeSf.cdu/
http://m.tal5.wrn&J:£$u/
IP* CALS
From: <Kalaitzandonakes>, Nicholas < Ka la itzandcinakesN(5>missoLJri.e clu>
Date: Sunday, August 11, 2013 11:04 AM
To: Sachs_Eric < eric.s.sachs<S>monsanto.com >, Roger Beachy < rbeachv{5>biolofiv2.wustl.edu >, "'Juma,
Calestous 1 " < ca1estous iuma@harvard.edu >. Prabhu Pingali < plp39@cornell,edu >, "'Carl E. Pray'"
< urav (5> AESOP. RutRers.edu >. "'Phillips, Peter'" < pgter.phillins@usask.ca >, "Kevin M. Folta ( kfoltagBLifl.edu )"
< kfolta<jj>ul1.edu >. Tony Shelton < ams5racornell.edu >. "David Shaw ( DShawgQresearch. msstate.edu )"
<D 5haw(5)research.msstate.edu >
Cc: 'Beth Anne Mumford' < bethannem@cmabuildstrust.com >
Subject: RE: Invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Series "Perspectives on Science Matters"
Hi Eric. . . thanks for your thoughts below. Peter Phillips and I have been kicking around the issue
of regulatory costs and their implications on innovation flow for some time now. We are about to
start working on this matter so your invitation is timely.
Best,
NK
From: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) r mailto:eric.s.sachspmonsanto.coml
From: Juma, Calestous <calestousJuma@harvard.edu>
Sent time: 08/08/2013 01:25:53 PM
Prabhu Pengali (plp39@comell.edu) <plp39@cornell.edu>; Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes (KalaitzandonakesN@missouri.edu)
<KalaitzandonakesN@missouri.edu>; David Shaw (DShaw@rcscarch.msstate.edu) <DShaw@researchmsstatc.edu>; SACKS, ERIC S (AG/1000)
To:
<eiic.s sachs@monsanto.com>; Roger Beachy <rbcachy@biology2.wustl.edu>; Carl E. Pray <pray@AESOP Rutgers edu>; Phillips, Peter
<pclcr phillips@usask.ca>; Folta, Kevin M.; Tony Shelton <ams5@comcll,cdu>
Beth Anne Mumford <bethannem@cmabuildstrust.com>
Subject: re ; invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Series "Perspectives on Science Matters"
I like the topic you have assigned Kevin though 1 would propose a change in the title: “Holding
Technological Vandals to the Fire and Keeping There for Some Time.”
From: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) [mailto:eric.s.sachs@monsanto.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 12:07 AM
To: Roger Beachy; Juma, Calestous; Prabhu Pengali (plp39@cornell.edu); 'Carl E. Pray'; 'Phillips, Peter’;
Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes (KalaitzandonakesN@missouri.edu); Kevin M. Folta (kfolta@ufl.edu); Tony
Shelton; David Shaw (DShaw@research.msstate.edu)
Cc: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000); 'Beth Anne Mumford'
Subject: Invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Series "Perspectives on Science Matters"
All,
As some of you know based on initial contacts, I have started an important project to produce a
series of short policy briefs on important topics in the agricultural biotechnology arena called
“Perspectives on Science Matters.” Based on initial feedback, I decided to reach out to all of you
collectively. I understand and appreciate that you need me to be completely transparent and I am
keenly aware that your independence and reputations must be protected. I hope after reviewing
this message you will support the vision and agree to author one of the briefs. Prospective authors
and topics are listed below.
Individually and collectively the topics were selected because of their influence on public policy,
GM crop regulation and consumer acceptance. The specific goal is to frame some of the important
issues facing biotechnology with reasoned thoughtful messages in a way that helps thought leaders
and influencers to better appreciate the growing body of knowledge available on the safety and
benefits of GM crops. The broader goal is to elevate the public dialogue and public policy
discussion from its current over-emphasis on perceived risks toward a broader understanding of
the societal benefits of GM crops and needed improvement in policies that are unnecessarily
limiting innovation in the biotechnology arena.
I am convinced that this initiative to publish and promote seven policy briefs on agricultural
biotechnology will spark new opportunities for outreach and engagement with policy makers and
consumers. The key to success is participation by all of you - recognized experts and leaders with
the knowledge, reputation and communication experience needed to communicate authoritatively to
the target groups. You represent an elite group whose credibility will be strengthened by working
together. Naturally, if you would like to add a co-author that is entirely up to you and welcome.
From: Roger Beachy [mailto:rbeachy@biology2.wustl.edu]
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 12:38 PM
To: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000); Juma, Calestous; plp39@cornell.edu; Carl E. Pray; Phillips, Peter;
KalaitzandonakesN@missouri.edu; kfolta@ufl.edu; Tony Shelton; DShaw@research.msstate.edu
Cc: Beth Anne Mumford
Subject: RE: Invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Series "Perspectives on Science Matters"
Eric:
Can you clarify the timeline for completing these pieces? I am inclined to participate as indicated to Beth
Anne, in particular if others on this mailing list are involved. It's a good group and some good topics - but
the impact will be lessened unless there is broad participation.
A suggestion: Will someone include, at least in passing, recognition that GM technologies are part of a
portfolio of technologies required for agriculture? Perhaps as part of a general introduction. Without such,
it may appear to readers that we are pushing a technology per se rather than a technology that provides
potential for achieving global food and nutrition security as well as economic and environmental
sustainability.
thanks
Roger
From: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) f mailto:eric.s.sachs@monsanto.com 1
Sent: Wed 8/7/2013 11:06 PM
To: Roger Beachy; 'Juma, Calestous'; Prabhu Pengali ( i3lo39@cornell.edu ); 'Carl E. Pray'; 'Phillips, Peter';
Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes fKalaitzandonakesN@missouii.edu) ; Kevin M. Folta (kfolta@ufl.edu) ; Tony
Shelton; David Shaw f DShaw@research.msstate.edu)
Cc: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000); 'Beth Anne Mumford'
Subject: Invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Series "Perspectives on Science Matters"
All,
As some of you know based on initial contacts, I have started an important project to produce a
series of short policy briefs on important topics in the agricultural biotechnology arena called
“Perspectives on Science Matters.” Based on initial feedback, I decided to reach out to all of you
collectively. I understand and appreciate that you need me to be completely transparent and I am
keenly aware that your independence and reputations must be protected. I hope after reviewing
this message you will support the vision and agree to author one of the briefs. Prospective authors
and topics are listed below.
From:
Beth Anne Mumford <beLhannem@cmabuLldstrusl.com>
Sent time: 08/12/2013 08:16:11 AM
plp39@comell.edu; KalaitzandonakesN@missouri.edu; DShaw@research.msstate.edu; Roger Beachy <rbeachy@biology2.wustl.edu>; SACHS,
To: ERIC S (AG/1000) <cric,s. sachs@monsanto.com>; Junia, Calestous <calestousJuma@harvard.edu>; Carl E. Pray <pray@ AESOP. Rutgers. edu>;
Phillips, Peter <peter.phillips@usask ca>; Folta, Kevin M.; Tony Shelton <ams5@comell.edu>
Subject: RE; invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Scries "Perspectives on Science Matters"
All, I am going to jump in as I am responsible for moving this project forward from here. I will be
contacting each of you individually but since timing is a common theme I wanted to address that as
a group.
Ideally, we would like to have all drafts completed in the next 30 days and the first of the final
papers released within 45-60 days. The goal is to release the series ot policy briefs in an
organized fashion over a period of time to maximize exposure and invite new dialogue around
each topic. 1 lowever, we recognize and respect that you also have many other important
commitments, We can work with you individually on timing if necessary.
I look forward to working with each of you on this important project. You will be hearing from me
in the next few days, but please feel free to share any additional questions you may have in the
meantime. Cheers, Beth Anne
Beth Anne Mumford
CMA
bethonnem;^cmabuildslrust.cQin
(816) 556-3137 office | (81 6) 801 -7059 fax | (309) 256-0755 cell
r i
cma
L J
WE BUILD TRUST/
Tv c m abui Idstrust i t i
Connect with me!
CMA | 2900 NE Brooktree Lane, Suite 200 | Gladstone, MO 64119
c m I
jCCAtfr^_ T \r a. .At C I M L - - ^.177-d-' ^7*1 ' - -r " r ■
gcaW' a TawSoTT^^iiK^^
wfarSEEwS^
ABOUT
HU MAM
FOOD & AGRICULTURE
SPECIAL SECTIONS
— GMO —
BEYOND
THE SCIENCE
GMOs and Global Food Security
David Zilberman | December IB, 2014 | University of California Berkeley
GMO Safety and Regulations
Alan McHughen December 15,2014 | University of California
Economic Consequences of Regulations of GM Crops
Peter W.B. Phillips | December 11, 2014 J University of Saskatchewan
Global Risks of Rejecting Agricultural Biotechnology
CalescQUE Juma | December 9, 2014 | Harvard Kennedy School
Anti-GMO Activism and Its Impact on Food Security
Kevrn Folta ( December 4, 2014 | University of Honda
Green Genes: Sustainability Advantages of Herbicide
Tolerant and Insect Resistant Crops
Anthony Shelton & David Shaw | December 2, 2014 Cornell University Mississippi
State University
Browse t
Authors
Sources
or try our A
uM-r j Ge netic Lite racy Pro) ect Spe cial Rep ort : GM O : B ey ond th e
EYON Science
IE SCIENC
Jon Entine | December 2, 2014 | Genetic Literacy Project
From:
Coy, F.mily <Emily Coy@kctchum,coin>
08/21/2013 12:59:35 PM
Folru, Kevin M
N there even one professional represeniing GMO asks who isn't pro-GMO'a?
Your response is live; http://Rrnoanswers.eom/a sk /l:hero-even-o n e * p rofe^sional-reftresentin ^^mQnsks-
who-isnt-pro-ftmos
Emily Coy
Senior Account Executive
+1 415 984 8216
Ketchum
break through
Celebrating ftn v- ■
PR Top Places to Work in PR
A proud partner of Room to Read, World Change Starts with Educated Children®
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
This message is intended only for The person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message or the information herein by anyone other than the intended
recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,
is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please destroy it immediately and
notify the sender.
From:
Folta. Kevin M
To:
Coy, Emily <Emily.Coy@ketchuni.com>
Subject:
RE Gmo Answers Updates for you
From: Coy, Emily [Emily.Coy@ketchum.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:32 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Cc: Oates, Kevin
Subject: RE: Gmo Answers Updates for you
Kevin - you are a content machine. Thanks for cranking this out. We'll send you the link once it is
live.
Hope things slowdown for you soon.
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:31 AM
To: Coy, Emily
Subject: RE: Gmo Answers Updates for you
) Finally, know you were working on this response - no rush, just including as an FYI “Why are
independent scientists that find GMOs to he unsafe systematically threatened and discredited? ”
This is a great question, and as an independent scientist that understands and promotes biotech, 1
know what it is like to be threatened and discredited. Not that it has ever mattered in my Field
(that's important later on).
When we do science our work is set out into public forums via journals. The work is always
carefully analyzed, criticized, and discussed in the context of our fields. It can get nasty, but
usually shapes the discussion forward.
But what about "systematic” threats and discreditation? A systematic response is what we see in
response to highly questionable findings. It is not a conspiracy or some organized effort. The
systematic response is triggered when scientists see examples were science is potentially being
manipulated or presented as rhetoric — making some sort of statement that is fraudulent, false or
highly questionable. Scientists jump on it. There is no conspiracy, it is a reaction of a scientific
community that plays by specific rules.
Threats? Scientists don't make many threats. If researchers are engaged in dodgy work they
sometimes can face institutional charges for academic misconduct, but usually they fade to
scientific irrelevance. Nobody believes their junk.... Except for the lay people duped by the bad
science! There are still people that vigorously defend the Andrew Wakefield vaccine-autism
study!
The anti-GMO world is dominated by a few (and I'm talking few) scientists that are lauded by
their followers. They have little credit with other scientists and don't publish findings in marquis
journals, the gold-standard in identifying outstanding work.
But let's look at the few “independent" scientists that find GMOs to be unsafe. The primary
concerns are levied by GE Seralini, someone I would not necessarily claim to be independent. He
is a darling of the anti-GMO movement in the USA and Europe, a prolific anti-biotech bookseller
and speaker. His work has been funded by Greenpeace and Auchan, a significant retail group in
Europe. His institute is called CRIIGEN (Committee for Research and Independent Information on
Genetic Engineering) which has a scientific board dotted with luminaries from various industries
not favorable to biotech.
He publishes the most anti-GMO work and is hardly independent. But to be intellectually
consistent let’s assume his work is free from potential conflict. After all. the science should not.
and usually is not, affected by the funding source.
The beauty of science is that it is self-policing and self-correcting. When the work is published it
goes under scrutiny by the scientific community at large. When the famous lumpy rat study was
published in September 2012. a scientific community looked carefully at the work and discovered
its unbelievable limitations. We collectively asked. "How does this &$#@& get published?" I
took most offense to Figure 3 where three lumpy rats are shown. These tortured animals are
presented for fear generation. We know this because they conveniently left off the (also lumpy)
control rat that ate standard rat food (Table 2).
The scientific community criticized the work, appropriately. That's not an attack- that's criticism.
That's what makes science go — continued deep analysis of our findings.
If in the future independent groups repeat these results you'll see Seralni get the last laugh and his
Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, the small numbers, lax controls and overgenerous interpretations, plus
no mechanism to support the findings, plus inconsistency with every other study, suggests we won't
see any more lumpy rats from CRIIGEN's research team.
That’s a long walk to a short answer — the scientific community is a great filter. The public is not.
Pay attention to the consensus, and realize that any findings that want to break a two-decade
record of outstanding safety will be prone to great scrutiny.
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Coy, Emily <Emily,Coy@ketchumcorn>
11/01/2013 09:08:36 PM
Folta, Kevin M
SAVE THE DATE: GMO Answers Update Briefing Nov. 6, 201 3
Hey Kevin - Over the past 3 months, you have played a critical role in addressing consumer questions
about biotechnology in agriculture through GMOAnswers.com , launched by the Council for Biotechnology
Information.
We truly appreciate your support and participation, and want to share the progress we've made, upgrades
to the site coming shortly and new additions planned for early next year. Please join us for the first
GMOAnswers briefing:
Date: Wednesday, November 6
Time: 2:30 PM EST / 11:30 AM PST
Location: Webinar
• http:/ /agen cvrQad.adobecQmiec.Lcom/cbi/
• Click "Enter as Guest" and type in your full name
Know you will be in the car - if you can only dial-in for the audio - that's fine!
Audio:
* Attendees will receive a pop up box upon entering the Webinar. They enter the number they
would like to be called on and the system calls that number
* Alternate audio - direct dial: 866.727.0515
We will send a calendar invite on Monday.
Thanks again for your continued interest and feedback. Have a nice weekend.
Emily
On Behalf of The Council for Biotechnology Information
GMO Answers
Ketch um
Emily Coy
+1 415 984 6216
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject;
Coy, Emily <Emily.Coy@ketchum.com>
1 1/02/2013 04:56:21 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
Re: SAVE THE DATE: GMO Answers Update Briefing Nov. 6, 2013
Hahah! We'll give out branded mouse pads for the second briefing call:) Have a good weekend-
talk to you Wednesday!
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 1, 2013, at 7:1 1 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." < klbltafamfl.cdii > wrote:
I'll be there. I was hoping for a GMOanswers.com coffee cup or baseball cap, but I'll take a
conferece call.
Always the bridesmaid, never the bride.
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Interim Chair and Associate Professor
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Institute for Plant Innovation
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
Don't tell me it can't be done... Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
From: Coy, Emily r Emilv.Cov@ketchinn.com l
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 9:08 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: SAVE THE DATE: GMO Answers Update Briefing Nov. 6, 2013
Hey Kevin - Over the past 3 months, you have played a critical role in addressing consumer questions about
biotechnology in agriculture through U MO Ai i s wors. com . launched by the Council for Biotechnology Information.
We truly appreciate your support and participation, and want to share the progress we’ve made, upgrades to the
site coming shortly and new additions planned for early next year. Please join us for the first GMOAnswers
briefing:
Date: Wednesday, November 6
Time: 2:30 PM EST / 1 1 :30 AM PST
Location: Webinar
• http: / /agency roa d . aciobeconnect.com/cbi/
• Click "Enter as Guest" and type in your full name
Know you will be in the car - if you can only dial-in for tire audio - that’s fine!
Audio:
• Attendees will receive a pop up box upon entering the Webinar. They enter the number they
would like to be called on and the system calls that number
• Alternate audio - direct dial: 866.727.0515
We will send a calendar invite on Monday
Thanks again for your continued interest and feedback. Have a nice weekend.
On Nov 16, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "Folta, Kevin M." < kfolta@ufl. edu > wrote:
Eric,
I'm wraping up that policy statement. Sorry so long. I've wandered all over the place on
this thing and don't like it, I needed more guidance on a target.
A quick thought. Can you direct me to someone in the company to talk about proactive
and precise labeling?
What if GMA, Monsanto, others came up with a voluntary system? I have a GREAT idea
that would not only stop these labeling fights, it would advance education, provide scientific
information, and more than satisfy "the right to know" (but they won't like what they
learn).
These labeling initiatives are close to passing. We need to take action from the science
side to shape this discussion.
If mediated by academics with no financial interest we can add cred and maybe produce a
politically neutral, scientifically accurate plan.
I have the plan in my head and we CAN do it and it WILL work!
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Interim Chair and Associate Professor
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Institute for Plant Innovation
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
Don't tell me it can't be done... Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) <eric.s.sachs@monsanto.com>
11/26/2013 12:06:10 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
RE: forward
Great. That will work.
Eric
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:06 AM
To: SACHS, ERIC S [AG/1000]
Subject: RE: forward
Eric,
I'll try you today at 1pm EST.
From: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) [ mailto:eric.s.sachs@monsanto.com1
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:34 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: RE: forward
Kevin - I dropped the ball on our phone call regarding your idea for voluntary labeling. I am free all day
today and would welcome a conversation. Please feel free to call me any time as I am at my desk working
on the mountain of crap that piled up while I was away in Europe and on vacation last week.
(314) 637-7650 cell
Happy Thanksgiving Holiday,
Eric
From: Folta, Kevin M. rmailto:kfolta@ufl.edul
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 8:36 AM
To: SACHS, ERIC S [AG/1000]
Subject: RE: forward
Eric,
Thanks. To not derail the family time, do you want to just give me a quick call when you get a few
minutes? Try me at 352-283-0799 anytime today except 4-6 EST, not tomorrow, but the rest of the week
is okay too.
kf
From: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) [ mailto:eric.s.sachs@monsanto.com1
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 11:57 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: Re: forward
Kevin
I'm your guy. Let's try to connect this week. I am taking some time off with family - son and
daughter-in-law visiting from NYC.
Best
Eric
From:
Sent time:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Oates, Kevin <Kevin.Oates@ketchum.com>
11/26/2013 05:27:36 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
Coy, Emily <Emily. Coy@ketchum.com>
GMO Answers - Advice
Hi Kevin,
Happy almost Thanksgiving. We wanted your input as we develop a GMO roundtable in DC on Dec. 10 th .
Specifically, we’re looking to include different voices that can join CBI director Cathy Enright. The event is
intended to be a live, in-person version of our website with a small audience of media covering ongoing
labeling legislation and other biotech topics.
Of course, we’d love to have you there but realize timing and travel make that unlikely. So we’re looking for
recommendations - additional experts in or near DC that may play a role. Some of the names we’re
considering include:
Independent experts
o Anastasia Bodnar, Biofortified
o Julie Howard, USAID
o Greg Conko, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Any other recommendations to add? And if there is some possibility to include you, we can certainly
discuss.
Hope you are getting ready for a great holiday.
Kevin
Kevin Oates
VP, Group Manager
+1 310 295 3320
Ketchum
break through
Celebrating 90 Years
PR News Top Places to Work in PR
A proud partner of Room to Read. World Change Starts with Educated Children®
Eric —
CFI will be presenting to McDonalds next week on consumers and GMOs. McD
invited in CFI. USFRA and maybe one other group to share what they know.
CFI is asking me for a little help, and the request sounds up your alley
CFI would like some bullets or an idea on what "science" the anti-GMO community is
using in their rhetoric.
You described to me yesterday a project you are getting up and running that will
debunk the various "science" studies the antis use.
So. I thought you may have a few ideas and would be willing to share with CFI.
Could be as simple as a list of the top 4 or 5 studies they reference, with a brief
description.
Please let me know if you can help. Eric. Appreciate any ideas you can share.
Sorry for the short notice.
Mindy
Mindy Whittle
Soybean industry Affairs Lead
3 1 4-694-6453
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) <cric.s.sachs@monsanto.com>
11/27/2013 06:16:16 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
Common Failings of Studies Alleging Harm from GM Crops and Foods
Common Failings of Studies Alleging Harm from GM Crops and Foods.docx ATT00001.htm
Kevin
This is what I drafted yesterday following our discussion. I need to work on it a bit but am happy
to share with you. Any comments are welcome. I don't plan to make this public. It is more to
support direct dialogue with stakeholders.
Eric
Common Failings of Studies Alleging Harm from GM Crops and Foods
• Artificial Exposures using Cell Cultures - Petri dish experiments in a
laboratory are not representative of exposures to a living animal and are not
informative about real-world risks to humans. According to international
guidelines, substances must be tested using in vivo feeding experiments with
intact animals, which is consistent with real life exposure conditions. In vitro
studies, in which substances are artificially administered directly to cells, do
not conform to international guidelines and authorities consider them to be less
reliable and less relevant for human risk assessments than studies in intact
animals. Numerous studies by Seralini, Carrasco, Mesnage,
Thongprakaisanga and others artificially expose cell lines to glyphosate.
• Dose Not Physiologically Relevant - Researchers may use very high doses
outside the range of realistic natural exposures to produce effects. Many
molecules will have effects at high doses that do not occur at physiologically
relevant ranges. The most infamous example is the laboratory experiment by
Losey at Cornell with monarch butterfly larvae and pollen from Bt com.
• Control Not Isogenic or Nutritionally Equivalent - Researchers sometimes
compare a GM variety to a non-GM control variety but do not recognize or
attempt to characterize the genetic or nutritional differences. This is often the
case with studies where animals are fed diets containing GM grain as
ingredients. Unless the genetic backgrounds tested are isogenic, or nearly so,
and the treatment and control are nutritionally balanced, the possibility exists
that any difference(s) observed are due to genetic or nutritional differences,
not the inserted genetic material or gene product. An example of this is the
study by Rosi-Marshall that alleged effects of Bt com tissues on stream-
inhabiting invertebrates that process plant debris, such as the caddisfly. In
addition, studies published by Malatesta alleging various effects of a GM
soybean diet on liver and other organs in mouse do not account for variation in
phytoestrogen levels, which are known to vary among soybean varieties and
have physiological effects in feeding studies.
• Inadequate Replication - Some studies use too few animals or may not be
properly controlled for any meaningful analysis. As a result, the observations
are more likely to be due to sampling error and randomness than direct
impacts of the test substance or dietary ingredient. To avoid drawing
conclusions that are misleading and unrepeatable, researchers follow
international standards for testing protocols or use known variation and
statistical considerations to choose an appropriate number of replications.
Two examples include: Seralini’s discredited study that alleged GM com and
glyphosate caused tumors in rats; and the Internet report by Russian scientist
Ermakova that claimed GM soybean meal caused growth and development
effects in rats.
• Absence of Dose and Effect Response - A number of studies have alleged
effects on rodents from inclusion of GM ingredients or glyphosate in the diet.
Experts look for more pronounced signs of toxicity with increasing dose (i.e.,
dose dependence) as an indicator of cause and effect. Studies without dose
response are often claimed as causing impacts when, in fact, the impacts, if
real, are not associated with the GM ingredient of glyphosate. Examples of
studies discredited for this reason include alleged effects of GM crops and
glyphosate by Seralini; a study by Mezzomo that alleged Bt toxins are toxic to
the blood of mice; and a report by Antoniou that Roundup herbicide causes
birth effects in frog and chicken embryos at very low doses.
• Inappropriate Experimental Design or Statistical Analysis - The
experimental design and statistical analysis are fundamental elements of any
study, and when the tenets of science are not observed there is the potential for
finding “significant” effects that either occur by chance alone. Sometimes the
experimental design is scientifically appropriate but because variability is
low the researcher identifies statistically significant effects that are small and
not biologically meaningful based on the magnitude of the difference
observed. These studies fail to consider internationally accepted guidelines
that include reference standards reflecting the normal range of responses,
standards of statistical analysis, comparison to historical data, and other
guidance to ensure robust conclusions. An example of failing to meet these
standards is the reassessment of toxicology data from studies conducted with 3
varieties of GM corn by Seralini and de Vendomois alleging unrecognized
impacts that was widely discredited. For example, the Food Standards
Australia New Zealand dismissed this study, stating, “Seralini and colleagues
have distorted the toxicological significance of their results by placing undue
emphasis on the statistical treatment of data, and failing to take other relevant
factors into account.”
• Unvalidated Claims as Evidence - Groups who are ideologically opposed
to biotechnology often utilize unvalidated claims to further their agenda, while
ignoring the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that underscores the
safety and performance of these products. There are many examples. All
selectively cite sources with little scientific credibility, such as press releases
from NGOs, newspaper articles, websites and discredited studies or review
articles in the scientific literature.
From: WHITTLE, MELINDA C [AG/1000]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:22 AM
To: SACHS, ERIC S [AG/1000]
Subject: Help CFI with McD presentation
From:
Sent time:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Coy, Emily <Emily.Coy@kctchum.com>
1 2/03/20 13 06:23:28 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
Raeber, Tara <Tara.Racbcr@kctchum.com>; Oates. Kevin <Kcvin.Oates(?£ketchum.com>
GMO Answers • DC Invite
Hi Kevin,
I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving!
As one of the most enthusiastic and active supports of GMO Answers - we would like to invite
you to participate in a live, in-person Q&A session with DC media to discuss biotech issues on
Tuesday, Dec. 10 1 * 1 .
We're hoping to gather a small group of experts to form a panel for a group of select media to meet
with. This is an intimate conversation - not a huge event. We’re calling it a roundtable breakfast.
I know you are VERY busy, and asking you to travel to DC next week for the roundtable - may be
challenging, but we wanted to ask. And if it isn't possible, we're very interested in DC-based authorities that
might be able to participate. We have a short list, but we're open to suggestions.
Your costs for travel to DC would be covered. Happy to share all the details if this something you
are interested in exploring further.
And while I have your attention! © I did want to follow up on the response you provided re: UF funding.
The original question is how much do biotech companies give to UF. Your response addresses Monsanto -
but not any of the other biotech companies. I hate to ask you to do this, but did want to see if you would
be willing to contact your financial person to see if funding information is available for the other biotech
companies. ..Your response is great! I But we did want to circle back with you on this to ensure we provide a
comprehensive response.
Question: How much have the biotech companies donated to the Horticultural Sciences Department,
University of Florida?
Thanks,
Emily
Q: HOW MUCH $$ DOES UF GET FROM MONSANTO?
A: I guess the basis of your question is that there are several University of Florida researchers
donating their time and expertise to answer questions on GMOanswers. I’m truly honored to be
surrounded by the world’s experts in plant science, including some of the foremost experts in
organic and sustainable technology. I encourage all to engage the public, as it is part of our
mission as a Land Grant Institution. That’s why we participate here, to teach, to extend research
findings.
Unfortunately, that makes us target. We present the science. When someone does not like the
science, they attack the scientist and in this case the institution. They dig through our public,
transparent records to seek any evidence of corporate influence. Look at what opponents do to
Michael Mann and the East Anglia scientists who present evidence of climate change!
To your question. How much money do we get from Monsanto? As the department’s Chairman I
should probably have those figures off the top of my head. I can’t recall a check from Monsanto
passing my desk, so I went down to Candy, our fiscal expert, and asked her to dig out all of the
contributions from Monsanto to the Horticultural Sciences Department.
How much comes to our department from Monsanto?
Exactly, zero, point, zero. At least that’s it in the last several years.
Now if you root around on the web you might find that Monsanto funded part of a position in our
department back in 2000. That’s true, but that’s part of a position — a really good thing! Check
that professor’s stellar publication record- great stuff, wonderful work, nothing Monsanto really
cares about much. This is funding to UF at one point, not to our department.
One other researcher has a contract with Monsanto to do some work, like $130K, but it is nothing
to do with GMO. It is work in tomatoes, non-GMO too. None of that comes to the department, that
all goes to fund a person in the lab supplies to do the work.
Back in 2008 1 asked Monsanto to cover $1500 in graduate student conference travel awards for a
poster competition and they declined. Another time I asked them to match a graduate fellowship
for $1 IK for three years and they said no. The only thing they’ve delivered to me is rejection.
As a department we get nothing, zero. If we did, life would be no different. See, we’re in the
academic world because we don’t want to work for corporations. Our independence is why they
would want to contract with us — we’re going to give honest answers to what we find, tell them
what we find, and represent the voice of science and reason.
I answer this question after spending a Saturday afternoon up to my elbows in 15 year old
Eppendorf 531 OR centrifuges that are not working and in need of parts. I fixed them myself 7
years ago. Now they need to be replaced. We don’t have funding to do this.
This is why I find the accusations of being a corporate stooge so offensive. I WISH I had access to
the deep pockets of corporate ag so I could work on teaching and research rather than defective
centrifuges.
Here’s where I get pointy. Maybe when activists finally harass all of us independent, public,
unbiased scientists out of the public domain and into the private sector we’ll look back on such
poisonous inferences. We work for you, the public. We’re proud of that, and all of the dollars in
the world could not sway our interpretations of science. Not with the faculty in my department, not
in my lab, never. We work for you.
When activists make up false connections and bogus claims, it does affect the public’s perception
science, scientists and the relevant, affordable work we do. Maybe people will notice when
we’re gone. Private sector science will be the only science left.
Thanks.
From:
Coy, Emily < Emily, Coy@kelchum.coni>
12/04/2013 06:05:50 PM
Sent time:
To: Folio, Kevin M.
Cc: Rueber, Tara <Tora.Raeber@keichum.com>; Oaics. Kevin <Kevin.Oaies@kcichum.com>
Subject: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable. 12/10
Kevin,
Here are few details for your visit to DC next week, Thanks again for making yourself available to
participate in the roundtable - we are thrilled to have you as part of the discussion - and really excited to
introduce you to other members of the GMO Answers team!
Arrive the evening of Dec 9 th (anytime that works for you) and departing the afternoon/evening on Dec
10 th (the afternoon will be busy - but feel free to book a flight anytime after 5 or 6pm)
December 10 th 2013
Location: Biotechnology Industry Organization 1201 Maryland Avenue, SW Suite 900. Washington, DC
20024 (Near the mandarin hotel)
Time: Arrive at 8:00am for quick prep session in advance of the roundtable; roundtable starts at 9am (likely
last about an hour)
Confirmed media:
■ Georgina Gustin, CQ. RollCall
• Christopher Doering, Gannett / USA Today
• Jenny Hopkinson, POLITICO
• Alan Bjerga, Bloomberg
Roundtable Participants:
• Cathy Enright, CBI
• Grower, TBO
• YOU!
The team is developing a discussion guide which will outline the general flow of the conversation, as well as
more background information on the media who are attending. I've cc'ed our media expert who I
mentioned to you on the phone last night - Tara Raeber. Tara is coordinating the roundtable details and
will share the discussion guide with you by the end of the week.
Tentative afternoon schedule:
• If select media cannot attend the roundtable and are interested in speaking with you 1:1 - we may
pencil in a few appointments that afternoon. It won't be a lot of interviews — just a few for media
who can't attend the briefing - this ok?
• We are hosting a monthly "Food Value Chain" call on 12/10 - it is a briefing to update
stakeholders on GMO Answers, participants include partners organizations such as the Soybean
association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association, American Meat
Institute, and the American Council on Science and Health
o If you are open to it - we would love it if you could join this webinar and speak briefly about
your experience participating in the Q/A and engaging w/ users on the site, why it's
important - and any best practices you have. The webinar is at 2pm EST on the 10 th . If you
are available, we will include your name in the invite the team is sending out today -
thoughts?!
• We are scheduling a lunch, coffee or drinks for you to sit-down with Cathy from CBI to further
discuss GMO Answers
• Last, but certainly not least! ! ! We would love shoot a few minutes of video where you respond to
questions from the site. Is this something you would be willing to do? If so, we can pull some
questions from the site (or if there are topics you want to discuss - let us know!) and share them
with you. The responses don't need to be scripted, or even very long - just a minute or two -
where you provide an answer to user's question via video. Fun right?
From:
Oates, Kevin <Kevin.Oates@ketchum.com>
Sent time: i 1/12/2013 09:54:55 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.; Coy, Emily <Emily.Coy@ketchum.com>
Subject: RE: ^ine mine mine mine mine
Thank you... again!
From: Folta, Kevin M. [kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:28 AM
To: Oates, Kevin; Coy, Emily
Subject: RE: Mine mine mine mine mine
Kevin,
Try Traci Irani irani@ ufl.ed u, Ricky Telg rwtelq@ufl.e du, Ed Osborne, ewo@ufl.edu , or Bryan Myers
bmvers@ufl.edu
Tell them I'm a friend of Ketchum!
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Interim Chair and Associate Professor
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Institute for Plant Innovation
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
Don’t tell me it can't be done... Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
From: Oates, Kevin [Kevin.Oates@ketchum.com]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 11:42 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.; Coy, Emily
Subject: RE: Mine mine mine mine mine
You beat us to it!! We just asked our group if there was something else behind this question before we
asked if you'd take a look. It’s all yours.
Also, side note - we're interviewing for a role on our team and several University of Florida grads from the
Master of Science in Agricultural Education and Communication program have popped up. We haven't hit
on the right candidate yet, but thought it might be useful to speak with someone in that program about
recruiting from the graduate pool. Any recommendations for a contact?
Kevin
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:34 PM
To: Coy, Emily; Oates, Kevin
Subject: Mine mine mine mine mine
Can I PLEEEEEEZe have this one?
From:
Sent time:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Coy, Emily <Emily.Coy@kctchum.com>
1 2/03/20 13 06:23:28 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
Raeber, Tara <Tara.Racbcr@kctchum.com>; Oates. Kevin <Kcvin.Oates(?£ketchum.com>
GMO Answers • DC Invite
Hi Kevin,
I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving!
As one of the most enthusiastic and active supports of GMO Answers - we would like to invite
you to participate in a live, in-person Q&A session with DC media to discuss biotech issues on
Tuesday, Dec. 10 1 * 1 .
We're hoping to gather a small group of experts to form a panel for a group of select media to meet
with. This is an intimate conversation - not a huge event. We’re calling it a roundtable breakfast.
I know you are VERY busy, and asking you to travel to DC next week for the roundtable - may be
challenging, but we wanted to ask. And if it isn't possible, we're very interested in DC-based authorities that
might be able to participate. We have a short list, but we're open to suggestions.
Your costs for travel to DC would be covered. Happy to share all the details if this something you
are interested in exploring further.
And while I have your attention! © I did want to follow up on the response you provided re: UF funding.
The original question is how much do biotech companies give to UF. Your response addresses Monsanto -
but not any of the other biotech companies. I hate to ask you to do this, but did want to see if you would
be willing to contact your financial person to see if funding information is available for the other biotech
companies. ..Your response is great! I But we did want to circle back with you on this to ensure we provide a
comprehensive response.
Question: How much have the biotech companies donated to the Horticultural Sciences Department,
University of Florida?
Thanks,
Emily
Q: HOW MUCH $$ DOES UF GET FROM MONSANTO?
A: I guess the basis of your question is that there are several University of Florida researchers
donating their time and expertise to answer questions on GMOanswers. I’m truly honored to be
surrounded by the world’s experts in plant science, including some of the foremost experts in
organic and sustainable technology. I encourage all to engage the public, as it is part of our
mission as a Land Grant Institution. That’s why we participate here, to teach, to extend research
findings.
Unfortunately, that makes us target. We present the science. When someone does not like the
science, they attack the scientist and in this case the institution. They dig through our public,
transparent records to seek any evidence of corporate influence. Look at what opponents do to
Michael Mann and the East Anglia scientists who present evidence of climate change!
To your question. How much money do we get from Monsanto? As the department’s Chairman I
should probably have those figures off the top of my head. I can’t recall a check from Monsanto
passing my desk, so I went down to Candy, our fiscal expert, and asked her to dig out all of the
contributions from Monsanto to the Horticultural Sciences Department.
How much comes to our department from Monsanto?
Exactly, zero, point, zero. At least that’s it in the last several years.
Now if you root around on the web you might find that Monsanto funded part of a position in our
department back in 2000. That’s true, but that’s part of a position — a really good tiling! Check
that professor’s stellar publication record- great stuff, wonderful work, nothing Monsanto really
cares about much. This is funding to UF at one point, not to our department.
One other researcher has a contract with Monsanto to do some work, like $130K, but it is nothing
to do with GMO. It is work in tomatoes, non-GMO too. None of that comes to the department, that
all goes to fund a person in the lab supplies to do the work.
Back in 2008 1 asked Monsanto to cover $1500 in graduate student conference travel awards for a
poster competition and they declined. Another time I asked them to match a graduate fellowship
for $1 IK for three years and they said no. The only thing they’ve delivered to me is rejection.
As a department we get nothing, zero. If we did, life would be no different. See, we’re in the
academic world because we don’t want to work for corporations. Our independence is why they
would want to contract with us — we’re going to give honest answers to what we find, tell them
what we find, and represent the voice of science and reason.
I answer this question after spending a Saturday afternoon up to my elbows in 15 year old
Eppendorf 53 1 OR centrifuges that are not working and in need of parts. I fixed them myself 7
years ago. Now they need to be replaced. We don’t have funding to do this.
This is why I find the accusations of being a corporate stooge so offensive. I WISH I had access to
the deep pockets of corporate ag so I could work on teaching and research rather than defective
centrifuges.
Here’s where I get pointy. Maybe when activists finally harass all of us independent, public,
unbiased scientists out of the public domain and into the private sector we’ll look back on such
poisonous inferences. We work for you, the public. We’re proud of that, and all of the dollars in
the world could not sway our interpretations of science. Not with the faculty in my department, not
in my lab, never. We work for you.
When activists make up false connections and bogus claims, it does affect the public’s perception
science, scientists and the relevant, affordable work we do. Maybe people will notice when
we’re gone. Private sector science will be the only science left.
Thanks.
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Coy, Emily <Emily.Coy@ketchum.com>
12/05/2013 11:31:07 AM
Folta, Kevin M.
RE: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10
We will aim to wrap things up by 3:30 - so you can head over to the other opportunity at 4. . .?
Does that work? We can probably wrap earlier if that is helpful.
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 8:29 AM
To: Coy, Emily
Subject: Re: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10
Emily ,
How late do you imagine Ketchum will want me there? Any time is fine. However, if you are
done with me in the afternoon I can hit the other opportunity. No pressure either way.
Kevin
Sent from my phone.
On Dec 5, 2013, at 11:24 AM, "Coy, Emily" < Emilv.Cov@ketchum.com > wrote:
Thanks Kevin - as long as you aren’t flying first class and getting massages at the Ritz
on us - we are ok © We want this to be as convenient as possible for you! Thanks for
booking your travel. More details to come. . . .
From: Folta, Kevin M. rmailto:kfolta@ufl.edul
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 6:35 PM
To: Coy, Emily
Cc: Raeber, Tara; Oates, Kevin
Subject: RE: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10
Okay, done. Even the flights that were there disappeared. I had to leave earlier, but I can
leave from Gainesville, so saves hours. I'll be in DC at 7:00 DCA on Monday, leave 7 PM on
Tuesday.
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Interim Chair and Associate Professor
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Institute for Plant Innovation
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
Don't tell me it can't be done... Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
From: Coy, Emily rEmilv.Cov@ketchum.coml
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:47 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Cc: Raeber, Tara; Oates, Kevin
Subject: Re: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10
That's ok. Thanks for the heads up. Feel free to book!
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 4, 2013, at 5:41 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." < kfoha@ufl.edu > wrote:
Emily,
I went to pull the trigger on the flight... what a difference a day makes.
They're talking $1000 to get there and back. Yesterday I had it at $412 with
great flights.
Please advise. I can wait a day, can't get much worse,
kf
Kevin M. Folta
Interim Chair and Associate Professor
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Institute for Plant Innovation
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
Don't tell me it can't be done... Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
From: Coy, Emily rEmilv.Cov@ketchum.coml
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 7:49 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Cc: Raeber, Tara; Oates, Kevin
Subject: RE: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10
Great! If the Green State TV interview is from 4-5 - we should be able
to work around that. We’ll try to wrap your day w/ us by about 3:30pm
so you can head to the interview and then to the airport.
From: Folta, Kevin M. r mailto:kfolta@ufl.edul
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 4:19 PM
To: Coy, Emily
Cc: Raeber, Tara; Oates, Kevin
Subject: RE: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10
Thank you Emily. This sounds exciting.
I had another opportunity to do a TV spot with Green State TV. They wanted
to do a skype call on Tuesday, but I told them I"ll be in town. I'll see if I can
arrange with them like 4-5pm, if that works for you. If not, I'll skype with
them on Wednesday. I belong to you for the day.
Thsi should be a lot of fun. I'm flattered to be part of such an exciting group.
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Interim Chair and Associate Professor
From:
Sent time:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Coy, Emily <Emily.Coy@ketchum.com>
12/06/2013 07:28:19 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
Raeber, Tara <Tara.Raeber@ketchum.com>; Oates, Kevin <Kevin.Oates@ketchum.com>; Mashek, Bill <Bill.Mashek@ketchum.com>
RE: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10
GMO Answers Media Roundtable Briefing Book.docx
Kevin - a few updates for you regarding next Tuesday’s roundtable.
Below is tentative schedule for the day. The DC team is still finalizing a few things, but we wanted
to get this to you to review in the meantime- know you have another opportunity with Green State
TV you are coordinating.
Also, attached is a discussion guide and several media backgrounders the DC team developed to
help you and Cathy prepare. Take a look and let us know if you have any questions about the flow
of the conversation.
December 10 th , 2013
8am to 9am: Breakfast prep at BIO
9am to 10am: Media roundtable at BIO
10am to 12noon: Video shoot at BIO
12noon: Lunch with GMOA team (location TBD)
2pm to 3pm: Monthly food value chain webinar from BIO
Included below are a few questions for your consideration for the “video shoot.” Keep in mind, if
there are specific topics you want to talk about - feel free to shoot it - we’ll find a way to get it on
the site
1782 - please just answer first half of the question, we can post a moderator comment which links
to existing content which discusses labeling
575 - if you aren’t familiar w/ Rachel or the video - don’t feel obligated to answer this question,
just thought you might have fun with this one; we try to refrain from personally attacking folks, so
don’t worry too much about Rachel specifically, but do feel free to address the concept of anti-
science/ responsible science and ethical progress
1584
Please explain the difference between GMO and cross breeding, or cross pollination
and how prevalent genetic modification is?
1782
Hi, whats the difference between God Made/given food vs Human made food such a:
GMO type food? plus i agree that all food should be graded and labeled.
575
How do you agree/disagree with 14-yr old GMO Labeling activist Rachel Parent,
who is, in her own words "not anti-science" but "for responsible science and ethical
progress"? http://www.voutube.com/watch?v=HIXER vZUBg
Holler with questions and have a nice weekend.
Thanks,
Emily
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 6:35 PM
To: Coy, Emily
Cc: Raeber, Tara; Oates, Kevin
Subject: RE: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10
Okay, done. Even the flights that were there disappeared. I had to leave earlier, but I can leave from
GMO Answers Media Roundtable Briefing Book.docx
GMO Answers Media Roundtable Breakfast
9am on December 10, 2013 at BIO
The purpose of the media breakfast is to further our strategic media outreach and create a live version
of our Q&A with members of the press. It will allow media to meet GMO Answers spokespeople and
experts in person, position GMO Answers as an open and trusted resource, and explore some of the
tough questions on GMOs and how our food is grown directly from our spokespeople.
CONFIRMED MEDIA
Alan Bjerga, Agriculture Reporter, Bloomberg
Alan is the author of the book Endless Appetites: How the Commodities Casino Creates
Hunger and Unrest and has previously worked closely with Ketchum on moderating
Food Dialogues and salon dinner events for USFRA. Alan has been following
development on the Farm Bill closely, particularly crop insurance, and tweeting out
updates daily. Fie has yet to write on GMO Answers.
Christopher Doering, Agriculture Correspondent, Gannett / USA Today
Christopher has previously interviewed Cathy for two articles, both covered by
Gannett and posting on the Des Moines Register site — one in early August reporting
the launch and more recently in November on the results of the Washington ballot.
Christopher joined Gannet in April 2012 after covering agriculture and economics for
Reuters since 2000.
Sarah Gonzalez, Associate Editor, Agri-Pulse
Sarah is a journalism graduate with a biology minor from Iowa State University and
spent one year working in the Public Relations/Marketing Department of the Iowa State
Daily. Fler office is inside USDA so she has established relationships with many of the
key influencers impacting Ag and rural policy. Sarah has never written on GMO Answers
but Agri-Pulse carried a quote from Jim Greenwood where he mentioned the website in
an article about the Washington ballot.
Jenny Hopkinson, agriculture and food policy issues reporter, POLITICO
Jenny is the editor of Morning Ag as well as the ag and food policy issues reporter for
POLITICO. She has reported extensively on GMO Answers and other efforts by the
industry. She has interviewed Cathy and Dr. Cami Ryan for stories. Before joining
POLITICO, Jenny spent three years at Inside Washington Publishers reporting on the
EPA with a focus on chemicals policy, power plant waste and pesticides.
Georgina Gustin, CQ RollCall
Georgina covers food policy for the CQ RollCall Executive Briefing having joined CQ in
September from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch - where she covered Monsanto and the
biotech industry. Georgina covered the launch of GMO Answers for the Post-
Dispatch, but not yet for CQ RollCall. Philip Brasher of CQ RollCall has occasionally in
the past written on labeling of GMOs and will be working closely with Georgina on
this beat.
BIOTECHNOLOGY
information break through
Goo a ideas ern growing
GMO Answers Media Roundtable Briefing Book.docx
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Run of Show
• Cathy Enright will welcome the group, introduce herself, and introduce Kevin Folta and let him share
his background. Then she can let the media guests introduce themselves. As this will be a small
group, introductions and the overall format of the event can be informal and conversational.
o The purpose of this briefing is to:
■ Introduce these select media to Cathy as a spokesperson and to one of our
independent experts Kevin Folta as a resource.
■ Provide an update on GMO Answers to date and the future of the initiative.
■ Introduce GMO Answers resources for future reference on related stories.
• Cathy will start by giving an overview of GMO Answers, particularly as a public Q&A and as a
resource for media and policymakers. Only a couple of the media in attendance have already
reported on GMO Answers. Cathy can welcome discussion from the media guests throughout.
• Cathy will give an update on progress of the initiative since launch, including questions received,
questions answers, most commonly asked questions, traffic to the site, Twitter customer service,
and reception from Capitol Hill, industry, and our biggest skeptics.
o So far, 319 questions have been answered on topics covering the gamut of GMO basics,
labeling, regulations, health and safety, the environment, seed choice, and the future of
GMOs. There is a robust dialogue on the site through the questions and comments.
• Cathy can give a brief outlook into 2014 and efforts to continue the open conversation and public
Q&A, particularly as consumers have questions around labeling initiatives heating up next year.
• Then Cathy can talk about the more than 70 volunteer independent and industry experts, and
transition to Kevin Folta to talk about his role.
o Kevin has answered 13 questions and commented on dozens more. He has answered
questions on the basics of GMOs, pesticide use, Roundup Ready, sustainability, the
regulatory approval process, patents, and health concerns.
• Kevin will talk about story telling on GMO Answers, fielding questions, and the site as a platform for
independent experts like him who work in this field to elevate their work or their voice.
o Kevin could use this time to describe examples of valuable interactions he has had on the
site with tough questions and skeptics.
• Cathy can engage with Kevin and ask about recent questions he has answered.
o Why are independent scientists that find GMOs to be unsafe systematically threatened and
discredited?
o I am interested in learning more about how biotech seeds improve sustainability. Can you
provide examples?
o I don't understand how you can say GMO food is safe, when farmers are spraying
glyphosate on their crops. How can you say that GM foods are safe and nutritionally
identical to nonGM foods?
• Then Cathy can open up discussion to the group and for questions from the media guests.
BIOTECHNOLOGY
information break through
Goo a ideas ern growing
GMO Answers Media Roundtable Briefing Book.docx
• Cathy can close by offering GMO Answers, herself, Kevin Folta, and other independent experts as
resources to them as they explore this topic in the coming year.
o Postcards will be available to distribute to the media as a quick reference.
Questions for Cathy / Kevin to the Media
• What information are you looking for that is not easily available?
• What are you most interested in on this topic? Health and safety concerns? New research? Next
generation products (like the apple, pineapple, potato, salmon)?
• What do you see as the next hot angle on the topic of GMOs and how our food is grown?
• What are you hearing about perceptions coming out of the Washington state vote and projections
for 2014?
• What is the media reception and reaction to the Seralini study retraction?
• How can GMO Answers be a good resource / a better resource to you?
###
BIOTECHNOLOGY
information break through
Gooo ideas am growing
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Coy, Emily <Emily.Coy@ketchum.com>
12/18/2013 05:56:28 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
RE: reimbursement
W-9 Form & Instructions 2005.pdf Vendor-Profile-22010.doc
Hey Kevin - In order to get you in the system, we'll need you to fill out the attached paperwork - 1 know!
Annoying. But in order to get you in the system it must be done.
Also - if you could send me back the expenses (full list pasted below)in a simple invoice - doesn't need to
be fancy.. .just your name/address/phone, the expenses bulleted out (like below) and the date (the date
which you submit the invoice), and the reason for the trip. ..we'll get it processed!
Sorry - they need your info and all of the expense in a word doc in order to process is that ok?
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 8:21 AM
To: O'Gorman, Cate; Coy, Emily
Subject: reimbursement
Emily and Cate,
Thank you for a wonderful interaction and a chance to participate on a new level.
I've attached my receipts for the trip, I minimized costs whenever possible, but ended in a few spots where
I had to take a cab over the metro... time ran short.
All receipts attached, except for one cab ride from DCA to Capitol Skyline hotel. The total breakdown
looks like this:
hotel
168.62
airfare
929.1
taxi
18
taxi
20
Taxi
21.25
park
18
1174.97
Kevin
From: O'Gorman, Cate [mailto:Cate.O'Gorman@ketchum.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 7:20 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Cc: Raeber, Tara; Mashek, Bill
Subject: Media Briefing now a teleconference!
Hi Kevin!
Due to the weather and BIO's offices being closed, we have changed the media briefing into a
teleconference. We would still love to meet you, so if you feel you can come to the Ketchum offices and do
From: Mashek, Bill f mailto:Bill.Mashek@ketchum.coml
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 5:21 PM
To: Owens, Darryl
Subject: RE: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting
Darryl: Dr. Kevin Folta of UF would be happy to write an oped - the deadline is not a problem either. Let
us know. Thanks. Bill Mashek
From: Mashek, Bill
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 1:19 PM
To: 'deowens@tribune.com'
Subject: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting
Darryl: I work with the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) on a new project called GMO Answers
( www.qmoanswers.com) .
With GMO Answers, CBI is committed to responding to consumer questions about food and crops - using
third-party experts. We work with a few experts at the University of Florida:
Dr. Kevin Folta http://www.arabidopsisthaliana.com/
Dr. Curt Hannah http://www.hos.ufl.edu/faculty/lchannah
I am writing to see if you would be interested in an oped from one of them on Nutrition - GMOs as you
outlined on ProfNet. If you have an opening - I would need to make sure one of them is available over the
break, but they are strong advocates of biotechnology and science, have a great Florida perspective, and
are strong communicators / writers. Please let me know if you are interested.
Thanks.
Bill Mashek
Bill Mashek
VP, Group Manager
+1 202 835 9452
Ketchum
break through
Celebrating 90 Years
PR News Top Places to Work in PR
A proud partner of Room to Read. World Change Starts with Educated Children®
Hi Dr. Folta,
Thanks again for coming to the GMO Answers dinner. It was nice to meet you in person!
GMO Answers plans to distribute a press release about the top 10 questions about GMOs, which
were submitted through a consumer survey. The release will include responses to the top three
questions to raise visibility for the great content available on the website.
The #1 question consumers asked is: Do GMOs cause cancer?
Is this something you might be interested in answering? We’re looking for a shorter response than
what we’d use on the site — a paragraph or two. Please let me know if you might be willing to
tackle this one.
Thanks,
Carly
For Council for Biotechnology Information
Ketchum
This message is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message or the information herein by anyone other than the intended
recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,
is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please destroy it immediately and
notify the sender.
I- rum: Mashck, Bill <Bill. Mashck@ketchum.com>
Sent time: 01/14/2014 05:49:41 PM
T° : Folta, Kevin M.
C c: D'Amico. Kate <Katc DAmico@ketchum com>; Zavlodaver, Tal <Tal Zavlodavcr@ketchum com>; Oates. Kevin <Kevin Oatcs@kctchum com>
Subject: Florida Salon Dinner
Kevin: Happy New Year from the Ketchum folks in DC. Hope you are well. One of the components of our
GMOAnswers plan is to host “salon” dinners in states with GMO-related issues, legislation, ballot initiatives,
etc. We have identified the top priority states - and Florida is on it.
We wanted to let you know we are planning a dinner in the Orlando area on February 5, 6 pm to 8 pm - it
is a tight turnaround, but Cathy was going to the area to make a speech and we decided to kill two birds
with one stone.
We would love to have you come and participate; it is intended to open up more conversation on GMOs and
allow for influencer listening and engagement. We are looking to invite a group of Floridians voices who
are engaged in the topic of agriculture, Florida’s economy, public policy, scientific research, GMOs, etc.
We also plan to invite some reporters too. The citrus issue gives us a great entre.
SO, we will follow up with a more formal invite, but we wanted to alert you now about 2/5 - and we would
love to get your thoughts on who else would be good participants. We are finalizing an invite list - we’d love
to get your thoughts / suggestions on it. Thanks. Bill Mashek
Bill Mashek
VP, Group Manager
+1 202 835 9452
Ketchum
break through
Celebrating 90 Years
PR Top Places to Work in PR
A proud partner of Room to Read. World Change Starts with Educated Children®
From:
Sent time:
To;
Cc:
Subject:
Oates, Kevin <Kevin.Oates@ketchum.com>
01/20/2014 07:37:22 PM
Folta, Kevin M.; Coy, Emily <Emily.Coy@kctchum.com>
Oppenheimer, David G; Bames, Carly <Carly.Barnes@ketchum.com>
RE: New Expert
Nice to meet you Dr. Oppenheimer. We’d welcome a chance to talk over the phone and really appreciate
your interest in addressing questions on the site. Thursday or Friday this week may be good times to talk if
you have any availability. Mid-day is generally best tor us since we’re a bit spread out, but we’ll
accommodate your schedule. I'm ccing UF grad Carly Barnes on this e-mail. Carly is a new addition to our
team.
Kevin - as always, thank you for the introduction.
Kevin
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:00 AM
To: Coy, Emily; Oates, Kevin
Cc: Oppenheimer, David G
Subject: New Expert
Emily and Kevin,
Please let me introduce you to Dr. David Oppenheimer (cc'd). He's a scientist at UF that would be
happy to answer questions. He'd be great!
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Interim Chair and Associate Professor
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Institute for Plant Innovation
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
Don't tell me it can't be done... Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
From:
Mashek, Bill <Bill.Mashek@ketchum.coim>
01/21/2014 09:38:29 AM
Sent time:
To:
Cc;
Subject:
Owens, Darryl <deowens@orlandosentineLcom>
Folta, Kevin M.
RE: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting
Dr. Folta: Recall late last year GMO Answers notified you about the Orlando Sentinel's oped page looking
for experts to weigh in on GMOs/agriculture. Darryl Owens at the Sentinel is interested in you penning a
piece about GMOs - he is going to run two columns that have opposing views.
Darryl: Thanks again for the follow up note - are there details you can share with Kevin about length /
word count / timing / the focus you want him to take (Florida / research / the safety / future of GMOs / etc.)
also do you know who will be writing the opposing view against the use of biotechnology?
Thank you both. Happy to do what I can to keep the process moving forward.
Bill Mashek
Bill Mashek
VP, Group Manager
+1 202 835 9452
Ketchum
break through
Celeb ratin g 90 Years
PR e s Top Places to Work in PR
A proud partner of Room to Read. World Change Starts with Educated Children®
From: Owens, Darryl [mailto:deowens@orlandosentinel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:14 AM
To: Mashek, Bill
Subject: RE: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting
Sounds good. Thanks!
Darryl E. Owens
Editorial writer/Columnist
The Orlando Sentinel
633 North Orange Avenue
Orlando, FL 32801
www .orlando sentinel.c om
Courage is fear that has said its prayers.
From: Mashek, Bill [Bill.Mashek@ketchum.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:48 AM
To: Owens, Darryl
Subject: RE: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting
Darryl: Bad typing on my handheld. Dr. Kevin Folta at UF is the scientist / researcher we have worked
with in the past. He likes to write - and is obviously based in and focused on Florida-research and issues.
I will send the two of you a note shortly making introductions - and you can provide him directly with
insights on the article you are looking for. Thanks again. Bill Mashek
Bill Mashek
VP, Group Manager
+1 202 835 9452
Ketchum
break through
Celebrating 90 Years
PR e s Top Places to Work in PR
A proud partner of Room to Read. World Change Starts with Educated Children®
From: Owens, Darryl r mailto:deowens@orlando5entinel.c om1
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:49 PM
To: Mashek, Bill
Subject: RE: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting
Sounds good. Thanks!
Darryl E. Owens
Editorial writer/Columnist
The Orlando Sentinel
633 North Orange Avenue
Orlando, FL 32801
www.or la ndosentinel.com
Courage is fear that has said its prayers.
From: Mashek, Bill [Bill.Mashek@ketchum.com]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 7:56 PM
To: Owens, Darryl
Subject: RE: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting
Darryl: thanks for the note! Dr. Colts at UF is a supporter of biotechnology and its contributions to
agriculture. Will be in touch this week. Thanks. Mashek
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown ( www.nitrodesk.com )
Original Message
From: Owens, Darryl [deowens@orlandosentinel.com]
Received: Monday, 20 Jan 2014, 4:06pm
To: Mashek, Bill [Bill.Mashek@ketchum.com]
Subject: RE: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting
Bill:
Just saw your follow-up note about Dr. Folta. That's great. Still what, position would he take?
Parry/ E, Owens
Editorial writer/Columnist/Opinions Channel Manager
The Orlando Sentinel
633 North Orange Avenue
Orlando, FL 32801
www*orlandosentineLcom
407-420-5095
Columns: hUo://www.orl3ndo5entind.com/news/cQlu rrmists /or1 -da rrvlow ens T Q3266S30xolumm5t
Twitter: lntps://tw]tter.cQm/^l/ 05 Darrylt:Qwens
Join us on Google+
Add the Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board to your circles: lillp://OrlandoSentin^lX.onVQ .pi nionPliJ S
Courage is fear that has said its prayers.
From;
Sent time;
To:
Subject:
Cathleen Enright <cenrighl@bio.org>
02/10/2014 12:38:17 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
Re: Thank you for coming to Orlando last week.
Agree that vigilance is needed, but my colleagues in the press believe perspectives are changing
for the better— reporters are growing increasingly tired of feeling bamboozled—and as such they
are telling our stories.
Cathleen Enright, PhD
Executive Vice President
Food & Agriculture
The Biotechnology Industry Organization
1201 Maryland Ave, SW Ste 900
Washington DC 20024
202 962 6644
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:06 AM, "Folta, Kevin M." < k fbliaftmifl.edu > wrote:
Cathy,
Sorry for running out the door, but we all looked at our watches and realized that time did in
fact fly when we were having fun. You were engaged with Bobbie Beagles and I didn't want
to interrupt.
This whole issue is reaching a dangerous pace. The new assault on science and reason with
fear marketing is staggering. Between Cheerios and Chipotle, etc, they are essentially
validating the crazy concerns. We need companies to stand up to the pressure, not to bend.
I guess it is another rant, but we're sliding backwards.
Call me whenever you need some extra assistance. I'm here.
Kevin
From: Cathleen Enright [ mailto:cenriqhtgabio.orql
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 8:20 AM
To: Hannah, Larkin C; Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: Thank you for coming to Orlando last week.
Dear Curtis and Kevin,
It was a pleasure meeting you at dinner last week. The Ketchum team is
sending a note to all dinner guests on my behalf, but I wanted to thank
you personally for taking the time to participate. We know that it's your
voices bringing authority and influence to the GMO debate. I truly
appreciate your willingness to get into the fray, both in and out of GMO
Answers.
All best wishes,
Cathy
Cathleen Enright, PhD
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:54 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.; Barnes, Carly
Cc: Oates, Kevin
Subject: RE: GMO Answers: Survey w/ Top Consumer questions
THANK YOU KEVIN!!
From: Folta, Kevin M. [m ailto:kfolta@ufl.edul
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:59 PM
To: Barnes, Carly
Cc: Coy, Emily; Oates, Kevin
Subject: RE: GMO Answers: Survey w/ Top Consumer questions
Sure, I can nail that one. Short form. No problem.
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Interim Chair and Associate Professor
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Institute for Plant Innovation
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
Don't tell me it can't be done... Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
From: Barnes, Carly [Carly.Barnes@ketchum.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:44 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Cc: Coy, Emily; Oates, Kevin
Subject: GMO Answers: Survey w/ Top Consumer questions
From:
Sent time:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Coy, Emily <Emily.Coy@ketchum.com>
02/12/2014 07:05:44 PM
Folia, Kevin M.; Barries, Carly <Carly.Bames@ketchum.com>
Oates, Kevin <Kevin.Oates@ketchum.com>
RE: GMO Answers: Survey w/ Top Consumer questions
Kevin - this is GREAT. Thank you.
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 2:00 PM
To: Coy, Emily; Barnes, Carly
Cc: Oates, Kevin
Subject: RE: GMO Answers: Survey w/ Top Consumer questions
Do GMOs cause cancer?
The short answer is no, there is absolutely zero reputable evidence that GMO foods cause cancer.
Cancer is a name applied to a spectrum of diseases where cells proliferate abnormally. There is
no way that the subtle and well understood alterations of a plant’s genes can cause cancer, There is
nothing about the Bt protein (used in insect resistance, also in organic pest control), the EPSPS
enzyme (which confers herbicide resistance, simply by substituting for the native enzyme in the
plant) or the process itself, that would induce such cellular changes. It is just not plausible.
Some of the confusion comes from reports where the Bt protein or glyphosate (the herbicide used
on some GM crops) is applied to cell lines in a petri dish, and the cells show changes associated
with stress and perhaps abnormal proliferation. However, cells in a dish do not behave like cells
in the body. Through years of careful evaluation there is no reliable evidence that GM foods cause
the same changes in a living organism,
Quite to the contrary future plants may be engineered to produce nutrients that fight/prevent cancer,
or even eliminate compounds that increase cancer risk. One such product is close to
commercialization. Potatoes produce a small amount of acrylamide, a potential carcinogen, when
heated to high temperatures. A potato has been engineered to not produce that compound, leading
to safer food.
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Folta, Kevin M.
04/21/2014 03:09:36 PM
Mashek, Bill (BilI.Mashek@ketchum.com) <Bi!l. Mashek@ketchum.com>
orlando sentinel
Bill,
What ever happened to that Letter to the Editor? Ihii a real disappointment, I put some big thought and
energy into it and I think it sends a solid message.
If they have no intention of using it, I'd like to send it elsewhere based on your recommendations,
kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Associate Professor and Chair
Horticultural Sciences Department
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32606
352-273-4812
Don't tell me it can't be done, tell me how you are going to help me do it,
Orlando Sentinel
'dm t Yf frii}> ;jjii
1 nvtbx lijf lihlla
7 l
Jsrrr> nf kforsice
HlJ.I
d l’ . !l j: -" » HkU
.■<
» LW'i
•mi
J"WC«
;. • V, *HHll juiY MUfrtlf*'
* IJtll
Home -* Collections — ► Technology
Despite GMO benefits, hysteria prevails:
Front Burner
May 9, 2014 | By Kevin M. Folta Guest columnist
Ui? con inn* ml
< 32
i • i
• !
Tweet *t |
The hazard of participating in an opinion forum on a scientific topic is that science isn't forged from
opinion. Two juxtaposed viewpoints in the Sentinel e 1 provide the illusion that they are equally
meritorious sides of the same issue. As typical with a scientific topic linked to a public controversy, one
perspective is based on significant evidence and the other is emotional, with little scientific base.
Want To Publish A
Book?
iunlverse.com
Learn How To Get Published Today.
Claim Your Free Publishing Guide.
Food Product
Development
pdifoods.com
From concept to commercialization! 30
Years of Food Science Exp.
As a socially and environmentally conscious public scientist, I've always been excited by transgenic
crop technology — familiarly, GMO — yet I have been skeptical of claims and cautious of
implementation. I've never had interest in the companies that commercialize biotech seeds, and never
received any compensation or funding g? from them. Yet after 30 years of studying the topic, I see
evidence that GMO benefits far outweigh limitations.
GMOs and GMO-containing food are not debated in scholarly conferences and are not a point of
contention among scientists working in medicine or modern plant biology. Instead, any debates are a
social phenomenon, fueled by activist fears, conspiratorial thinking, emotion, low-quality science,
’’natural" marketing gimmicks, and strong feelings about "Big Ag." It is an emotional and visceral
discussion, because it is about food, something with deep personal meaning, and those with an agenda
exploit that. However, when we disengage from emotion and study the science, we see that there really
is nothing to fear.
Biotech critics say that the technology does not work g?. They will tell you that all government and
academic scientists are paid stooges for corporations, that there is no independent research, regulation
or testing with genetically modified products. They say farmers are dimwits, and corporations are
reaping profits by killing everyone with poison products, They will tell you that GMOs cause autism,
allergies, obesity and 30 other disorders.
The critics' claims don't match the facts. Farmers freely choose biotech seed because they ensure
yields, reduce costs and decrease inputs like insecticides. Hundreds of independent research reports
show g? no evidence of harm. Today, 70 percent of food on store shelves contains at least one
ingredient from a GMO plant. The technology also brings us renewable fuels and fibers with lower
environmental impact. In trillions of meals consumed, there has not been a single confirmed incident
with genetically modified food linked to a health problem. The safety record is amazing, and reinforced
by our best scientific organizations, including the American Medical Association, the National
Academies of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Here in Fl orida g?, these technologies could potentially stop citrus greening and other crop diseases.
Around the world, the poorest could benefit from improved varieties and nutrition. Sadly, such
innovation is being stymied by manufactured perils. Technologies with tremendous potential benefits
are frozen because of a vigorous anti-scientific misinformation campaign.
The question is not whether these technologies are safe or whether they should be banned or
restricted. Instead, here is what we should be discussing:
Will we allow profiting authors, celebrity chefs and eco-terrorists to arrest the pace of scientific
progress? Should privileged food activists dictate what seeds farmers may grow and what technologies
may reach the poor? Will we tolerate smear campaigns against reason, science and scientists, like
those waged against those that advocate for climate science, evolution or vaccines? Is It ethical for
fearmongers to lie to concerned parents about food, especially mothers with limited means? Will we
allow a cadre of the Internet's self-appointed experts to coerce politicians into clunky and unnecessary
regulation?
These are the real questions in the GMO debate.
Kevin M. Folta is an associate professor and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the
University of Florida.
From: Mashek, Bill [Bill.Mashek@ketchum.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 8:50 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: RE: Orlando Sentienl - Intro / Pro / Con
Kevin: We loved your oped in the Orlando Sentinel - this posting is priceless. (It is not in the GMO
Answers “voice” but I think it is perfect for a UofF science professor to say.) My favorite line: ( Public
Interest Research Group- ironically not doing much research, especially in science for the
public interest).
Mashek
Bill Mashek
VP, Group Manager
+1 202 835 9452
Ketchum
break through
Celebrating 90 Years
From: Folta, Kevin M. [ mailto:kfolta@ufl.edul
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 9:01 AM
To: Mashek, Bill
Subject: RE: Orlando Sentienl - Intro / Pro / Con
Yes, not the soft voice, but this is the point— here's a person with no idea of what she's talking about
beyond the bullshit she read on activist websites. It is the classical fear campaign. Her words reinforce
a flawed viewpoint and it is good to show that.
I actually got 8 mad emails and 10 nice ones. How about that?
I think the strategy works. It puts in place a solid example of science vs. misinformation.
Have a good week...
Kevin
From: Mashek, Bill [Bill.Mashek@ketchum.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 9:35 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: RE: Orlando Sentienl - Intro / Pro / Con
I agree Kevin; I think land grant professors / researchers / scientists have a big white hat in this debate and
supporters in their states - from politicians to producers. Keep it up! And 10 out of 18 is hall of fame
numbers. Mashek
Bill Mashek
Broad-Based Coalition Launched to Advocate for Congressional
Action on a Federal GMO Labeling Solution
Legislation Needed to Protect Consumers by Eliminating Confusion and Advancing Food Safety
P3 Share
o +< i |
English^
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — American farmers and representatives from a
diverse group of almost thirty industry and non-governmental organizations today announced the formation of
the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food (www.CFSAF.org (http://www.CFSAF.org)) and urged Congress to
quickly seek a federal solution that would establish standards for the safety and labeling of food and beverage
products made with genetically modified ingredients (GMOs).
"American families deserve safe, abundant and affordable food," said Martin Barbre, President of the National
Corn Growers. "And America's farmers rely on this proven technology to protect crops from insects, weeds
and drought, enabling us to deliver on that promise and to do so through sustainable means. A federal
solution on GMO labeling will bolster consumer confidence in the safety of American food by reaffirming the
U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) role as the nation's foremost authority on the use and labeling of foods
containing genetically modified ingredients."
A federal GMO labeling solution is needed that will protect consumers and ensure the safety of food
ingredients made through the use of modern agricultural biotechnology:
• Eliminate Confusion : Remove the confusion and uncertainty of a 50 state patchwork of GMO safety and
labeling laws and affirm the FDA as the nation's authority for the use and labeling of genetically modified
food ingredients.
• Advance Food Safety : Require the FDA to conduct a safety review of all new GMO traits before they are
introduced into commerce. FDA will be empowered to mandate the labeling of GMO food ingredients if the
agency determines there is a health, safety or nutrition issue with an ingredient derived from a GMO.
Inform Consumers : The FDA will establish federal standards for companies that want to voluntarily label
their product for the absence-of or presence-of GMO food ingredients so that consumers clearly
understand their choices in the marketplace.
• Provide Consistency : The FDA will define the term "natural" for its use on food and beverage products so
that food and beverage companies and consumers have a consistent legal framework that will guide food
labels and inform consumer choice.
"Foods made with genetically modified ingredients (GMOs) are safe and have a number of important benefits
for people and our planet," said Pamela G. Bailey, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers
Association. "Our nation's food safety and labeling laws should not be set by political campaigns or state and
local legislatures, but by the FDA, the nation's foremost food safety agency.
"GMO technology has fostered a revolution in American agriculture that has benefitted consumers in the
United States and around the world. And with global population expected to grow from seven to nine billion by
2050, we will need 70% more food production to keep pace. A federal GMO labeling solution will provide a
framework for the safe and continued use of technology that is essential to the future of our planet."
Facts About GMOs (www.FactsAboutGMOs.org (http://www.factsaboutgmos.org/) )
• Many of the most influential regulatory agencies and organizations that study the safety of the food supply,
including the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the World Health
Organization, Health Canada, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Academy of Sciences,
have found genetically modified food ingredients (GMOs) are safe and there are no negative health effects
associated with their use.
• GM technology adds desirable traits from nature, without introducing anything unnatural or using
chemicals, so that food is more plentiful.
• GM technology is not new. In fact, it has been around for the past 20 years, and today, 70-80% of the
foods we eat in the United States, both at home and away from home, contain ingredients that have been
genetically modified.
• Ingredients grown using GM technology require fewer pesticides, less water and keep production costs
down. In fact, GM technology helps reduce the price of crops used for food, such as corn, soybeans and
sugar beets by as much as 15-30%.
• One in eight people among the world's growing population of seven billion do not have enough to eat, and
safe and effective methods of food production, like crops produced through GM technology, can help us
feed the hungry and malnourished in developing nations around the world.
The Coalition for Safe Affordable Food is dedicated to providing policy makers, media, consumers and all
stakeholders with the facts about ingredients grown through GM technology. We are also an advocate for
common sense policy solutions that will only further enhance the safety of the GM crops and protect the vital
role they play in today's modern global food supply chain. The coalition is comprised of American farmers and
representatives from a diverse group of industry and non-governmental organizations.
Coalition Members
1. AACC International/ American Phytopathological Society
2. American Bakers Association
3. American Beverage Association
4. American Farm Bureau Federation
5. American Feed Industry Association
6. American Frozen Food Institute
7. American Seed Trade Association
8. American Soybean Association
9. American Sugarbeet Growers Association
10. Biotechnology Industry Organization
1 1 . Corn Refiners Association
12. Council for Responsible Nutrition
13. Flavor & Extract Manufacturers Association
14. Global Cold Chain Alliance
15. Grocery Manufacturers Association
16. International Dairy Foods Association
17. National Association of Manufacturers
18. National Association of Wheat Growers
19. National Confectioners Association
20. National Corn Growers Association
21 . National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
22. National Fisheries Institute
23. National Grain & Feed Association
24. National Oilseed Processors Association
25. National Restaurant Association
26. National Turkey Federation
27. North American Millers Association
28. Snack Food Association
29. U.S. Beet Sugar Association
SOURCE Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
From: claireiacfsaf.org r mailto:dairc@cfsaf.Qrq l
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:01 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: Coalition for Safe Affordable Food Informational Call
Dr. Folta,
As you know, The Coalition for Safe Affordable Food applauded the recent
introduction of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act by Representatives Mike
Pompeo and G.K. Butterfield. This important legislation is a common sense policy
solution that will further enhance the safety of GM crops and protect the vital role they
play in today’s modem global food supply chain.
Our Coalition will be working tirelessly over the coming months to advocate for
passage of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. Unfortunately, activist
opponents have launched an all-out attack on the bill since its introduction. Their
attacks are based on false and misleading claims about the bill and GM technology
itself.
An important part of the Coalition’s work is to counter these unsubstantiated claims
and communicate to policy makers and consumers the facts about the legislation and
this vital technology.
Please join us for a briefing and discussion with GMA President Pam Bailey,
National Council of Farm Cooperatives President and CEO Chuck Conner, and BIO
Executive Vice President Cathy Enright.
• May 7, 2014, 3 PM EDT
• Dial in: 1-877-61 1-0334/ Pass Code:3488659
During the briefing we’ll update you on the Coalition’s efforts, review the current
legislative landscape and next steps in Congress, and explore additional ways to
engage you in our efforts.
We look forward to updating you, hearing your thoughts and discussing ways to
advance this issue.
Cathy and Claire,
I was on the phone call, missed instructions on how to answer question, so I
was out there talking to a phone a bunch and not getting through.
A few thoughts:
1. Bruce and Dan hit it out of the park. This legislations singles out a
PROCESS, not a product. That's a bad move. To CORRECT it.., the law
should make ANY new genotype (traditional breeding, hybrids,
mutation breeding, whatever) provide its safety testing. I think that
would solve the problem. You see what I mean.
2. This legislation will not be looked upon favorably by the antis. It will
be noted as "Monsanto Protection Act II". They'll vilify the FDA as a
rubber stamp of Big Ag.
Long story short, I think it is the best idea out there, but we need a bigger venue
for the science than GMO Answers.
I LOVED Cathy's thoughts about ethics and that has been my current
approach. Last week I said, "As a scientist it would be unethical for me to not
want to implement the best tools available to help farmers, the environment or
the needy". That is the message.
We need to continue to focus the discussion forward into missed opportunities,
win back the emotional capital. MON, DOW, etc need to run commercials
about the future products of biotech ag. Get people excited about what can
be, what will be, unless some do-gooder tries to stop it.
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Cathleen Enright rc enright@bio.orq1
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:38 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: RE: Coalition for Safe Affordable Food Informational Call
Thanks Kevin. It's important for the scientific perspective to
remain firm as more work is done to advance and shape this
bill. As indicated, the bill has provided us the single best
opportunity to brief Congress about biotech, and to reinforce
the science behind the technology. Best wishes, Cathy
Cathleen Enright, PhD
Executive Vice President, Food and Agriculture
The Biotechnology Industry Organization
1201 Maryland Ave, SW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20024
202-962-6644/9200 direct/main
202-735-4025 cell
cenrioht@bio.org
Got a question about GMOs? Ask us anything at
www.GMOAnswers.com
Learn more about Biotechnology at bio.org
Engage with the Biotech Community at BIOtech-NOW.org
Follow us on Twitter (@IAmBiotech)
Become a fan on Facebook ( facebook.com/IAmBlotech )
From: Folta, Kevin M. rmailto:kfoita@ufl.edu1
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 4:49 PM
To: daire@cfsaf.org; Cathleen Enright
Subject: RE: Coalition for Safe Affordable Food Informational Call
From:
Cami Ryan <cami.ryan@usask.ca>
Sent time: 06/21/2014 05:49:30 PM
To* Peter J. Davies <pjd2@comcll.edu>
Coy, Emily (Emily.Coy@ketchum.com) <Emily.Coy@ketchum.com>; Wayne Parrott (wparrott@uga.edu) <wparrott@uga.edu>; Jon Entine
(jon@jonentine.com) <jon@jonentine.com>; Ronald J. Herring <ronherriug@cornell.edu>; Ann Grodzins Gold <aggold@syr.edu>; Deepthi
Cc: Elizabeth Kolady <dek28@comell edu>; Sarah Davidson Evanega <snd2@comell.edu>; Peter Hobbs <phl4@coniell.edu>; Janice E. Thies
<janicedhics@comell.edu>; Folta, Kevin M.; Ronnie Coffman <wrc2@cornell.cdu>; Elizabeth D Earle <cdc3@comcll cdu>; Anthony M. Shelton
<ams5@comcll.cdu>
Subject: Re: More ^GO drama in India: Ron Herring and Cornell attacked by Vandana and Aruna Rodriguez
We are all bad-ass shills for the truth.
It's a pleasure shilling with you.
Camille (Cami) D. Ryan, B.Comm., Ph.D.
Independent Research Consultant and Public Speaker
Professional Affiliate, Department of Bioresource Policy, Business & Economics
College of Agriculture
University of Saskatchewan
Canada
403-809-2831 (cell)
Blog: liit p://tloccam i i'yaii.wordnrcss.eom/best-of-camis-bloa/
Twitter me @DocCamiRyan
On Jun 21, 2014, at 1 :32 PM, "Peter J. Davies" < pjd2(5jeomcH.edu> wrote:
Congratulations Ron! !
When you are called one “who promotes GMOs and the monopoly of Monsanto. It is
ironic that the IB report relies on the evidence of Herring with his antecedents in
Cornell University, a hub of blind GMO promotion” we are getting noticed.
Peter
From: Ronald J. Herring
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2014 3:19 PM
To: Ann Grodzins Gold; Deepthi Elizabeth Kolady; Sarah Davidson Evanega; Peter Hobbs;
Peter J. Davies; cami.ryan
Cc: Ronnie Coffman; Elizabeth D. Earle
Subject: Fwd: More NGO drama in India: Ron Herring and Cornell attacked by Vandana
and Aruna Rodriguez
Subject: More NGO drama in India: Ron Herring and Cornell
attacked by Vandana and Aruna Rodriguez
" It is ironic that the IB report relies on the evidence of Herring with
his antecedents in Cornell University, a hub of blind GMO
promotion,""
As NGOs ciy foul, seed industry body defends IB report
Times of India
It said, ’’Sustained campaign has led to derailment of vital genetically modified (GM)
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
REDING. H KEITH (AG/ 1000] <h.kcith redingfftmonsanto com>
06/23/2014 06 18 45 PM
Folta, Kevin M
call with Monsanto
Hi Kevin,
Here is the call info.
Number: 1-855-694-5212
Passcode: 804 610 584
From Monsanto, it will be Mike Lohuis, Scientific Community Engagement Lead, and John Vicini and me
from Regulatory Policy and Scientific Affairs.
Regards,
Keith Reding, Ph.D.
314-694-6615 W
314-809-9624 C
y
twitter.com/KeithReding
Mike
From: REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:15 PM
To: LOHUIS, MICHAEL M [AG/1000]
Cc: DOBERT, RAYMOND C [AG/1000]; REYNOLDS, TRACEY L [AG/1000]
Subject: FW: propsoal
Hi Mike,
Here is the proposal from Kevin Folta.
Keith
From: Folta, Kevin M. rmailto:kfolta(g)uf|.edu1
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:02 AM
To: REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000]
Subject: propsoal
Keith,
This is a real winner. It will take a huge amount of time, but I think it will have a lot of impact. Please
forward as necessary.
Thank you for this opportunity. It was a good time to think about how to solve the problem and devise a
clever solution.
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32606
352-273-4812
Part of me now thinks, "I should try crowd funding my research" and the other part thinks, "But how will it feel to lose to
potato salad?"
Biotalknowledgey.pdf
Bio* talk* knowledge^ : Training Scientists How to Teach
Concepts in Transgenic Crop Improvement
Kevin M. Folta Ph.D. Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Rationale and Justification
While transgenic crop varieties have been undeniably advantageous to farmers and hold
tremendous potential for future advances, the general population does not understand the
realistic benefits and limitations to the technology. Recent surveys by the University of
Florida PIE Center report that while a small percentage of Americans stands firmly
against the technology, the vast majority has no knowledge of it, and no opinion about it.
However, the fearful narratives from activist websites are highly influential and compel
those without a firm opinion to adopt “cautious” food choices. These fear-based
narratives and practices are fueled by deceptive rhetoric or language designed to promote
non-transgenic food choices. Crop improvement though transgenic technology was
deployed without a preemptive education program, presenting a perfect storm for public
misunderstanding and rejection of the technology.
The effect of this relationship is fear and undue cynicism about transgenic crop
technology, the companies that develop it, and the farmers that deploy it. Safe food
products with no plausible means of harm become stigmatized. Technologies useful to
farmers in the developing world are arrested in slow-moving pipelines. Activists promote
strict adherence to precaution, and the well fed in the industrialized world manipulate
public perception and manufacture risk to advance their agendas.
Activist control of public perception has many casualties, including limiting options for
farmers, decreased use of farm inputs, and food security domestically and abroad. There
is a strong push for clunky and unnecessary food labeling efforts that are destined to
increase food costs and limit product choices.
One solution is education, followed by enhancing effective communication of complex
scientific food topics. While those professed to stopping biotechnology at all costs are
not likely to change, we can influence the vast general public that is still clearly forming
an opinion.
Over the last 12 years I have been visiting public forums to discuss how the process
works, what are the actual risks, and what are the benefits to four central clientele: the
farmer, the consumer, the needy and the environment. It took twelve years of listening
and talking, for fearless integration with the strongest dissenting voices, to understand the
failures of technology adoption by the general public. It is not about the science. It is
about how the science is communicated. Using this starting point, the activities in this
proposal seek to teach scientists how to engage public audiences about transgenic crop
technology.
Biotalknowledgey.pdf
Project Plan
There is a three-tiered solution to this biotech communications problem. The proposal
will fund monthly one-day excursions for Kevin Folta to visit a major domestic
university campus. During the day, the activity will be to train the trainers. The 3-hour
program will provide a strong discussion and guidelines about how to teach concepts in
biotechnology- providing both content and presentation skills. After the training,
participants will be invited to participate in a public presentation on transgenic crop
improvement later that day. Coupling training and application will allow participants an
opportunity to test what they have learned, build confidence, and encourage sustained
efforts in teaching biotechnology in public forums. The other central activity is a
Biotechnology Communication Conference at the University of Florida.
AIM 1. Train the Trainers. The first step is to provide at least one presentation per
month at a major agriculture campus to teach faculty, staff and students how to most
effectively communicate topics in biotechnology. Folta will visit one location per month
for a training session and then and outreach activity the same day. The locations have
been determined based on current interest- several universities have contacted Folta to
provide such a training session. The closer, and more cost-flexible locations have been
listed last in this plan to enable effective budgeting.
All funding will be used, so cost savings translate into more training sessions.
The basic plan is to provide this information in a half-day activity.
A. Content. Participants will learn about transgenic crop improvement in several major
areas.
Basic nuts and bolts. First they will learn which crops are engineered and how the
transgenes work. The focus will be restricted to existing technologies in insect
resistance, herbicide resistance and viral resistance. (40 min)
Common myths and responses. Participants will learn the typical arguments posed by
those positioned against biotechnology. They will then learn the actual information and
where to find additional resources, including the primary literature. (30 min)
Basics of Regulation. It is critical to understand the fundamentals of the regulatory
process. These concepts will be discussed briefly (20 min)
The pipeline. What’s next? What are some of the products in industry pipelines and
what problems could they solve? What are some of the products generated in academic
labs that could solve major world issues- yet are not candidates for deregulation or
commercialization? (20 min)
Biotalknowledgey.pdf
B. Presentation. Participants will learn how to effectively engage public audiences and
share information.
Understanding risk and public perception. Essentially a psychology lesson about
how the public responds to risk. It is essential to understand how the average non-
scientist makes decisions in order to be effective at persuasion. (20 min)
How to persuade. This section will be a basic primer on rhetoric and argument as
applied to biotechnology. Concepts such as logos, ethos and pathos will be discussed in
the context of biotechnology. How is a concept viewed as sterile or threatening to the
public presented most effectively? (30 min)
C. The Importance of Social Media. (20 min)
AIM 2. Engage the Public. After the training session there will be a same-day public
forum on biotechnology. Faculty, staff, and especially students will be invited to
participate in a local public discussion. The presentation will be led by Folta, but parts
will involve individual presenters from the earlier activity, especially favoring student
and postdoc presenters.
We will strategically orchestrate a meeting through local a local food co-op, organic
group or a campus organization. This will be arranged principally by the local students
and postdocs participating in the training forum.
The format will be a one-hour prepared presentation followed by an “Ask Me Anything”
and it will be a transparent and honest discussion of biotechnology. The goal is to
provide a starting point, an introduction to scientists (some local) that can and will
address their questions and concerns at that time and going forward.
These presentations typically discuss:
• How plants are improved genetically by humans, comparing and contrasting
traditional breeding, mutation breeding, polyploid inductions and transgenics.
• What are the current transgenic plants available?
• How do you make a transgenic plant?
• What are the mechanisms? What are the strengths and limitations?
• What is regulation like and how do we know the products are safe?
• What are the next generation of plant products?
Biotalknowledgey.pdf
Breakout Session. We will use this platform to then create some one-on-one breakout
time with interested members from the public meeting. While visiting campuses small
groups of influential individuals with dissenting opinions (maybe 3-5) will be invited to
social discussions over coffee or appetizers at a venue of their choosing. The goal is to
provide a comfortable conversation and inroads into reframing the discussion. In the
past, these discussions have been extremely effective. When engaging a group with
scientific information, strong personalities associated with scientific denial tend to
provide great contrast, and influence the general tone of the conversation. In my
estimation, these are the most powerful and influential opportunities.
These breakout sessions also will allow student and postdoc presenters to make local
contacts, as well as learn how to effectively work with difficult personalities.
AIM 3. On-Campus Training at UF. An expanded version of the program will be
presented at the University of Florida and will be open to students, faculty and other
academics. The two-day program will feature talks on biotechnology and science
communication from experts at UF and several others brought in from the outside,
including industry representatives, journalist experts in science communication (e.g.
Tamar Haskel, Amy Harmon), and experts in public risk perception and psychology (e.g.
Dan Kahan). We also may draw from the UF School of Journalism, where Drs. Joe Keys
and Ann Christiano have shown enthusiasm about participating in such efforts.
The program will be a two-day, 9 am- 5pm event. A catered buffet-style dinner will be
provided. Lunch will not be provided, but time will be available.
The general plan will follow the same course as the off-campus sessions presented in
AIM I- only expanded and presented by outside experts.
A. Content. Participants will learn about transgenic crop improvement in several major
areas, approximately 1-2 hours each:
• Basic nuts and bolts. First they will learn which crops are engineered and how
the transgenes work. The focus will be restricted to existing technologies in
insect resistance, herbicide resistance and viral resistance.
• Common myths and responses. Participants will learn the typical arguments
posed by those positioned against biotechnology. They will then learn the actual
information and where to find additional resources, including the primary
literature.
• Basics of Regulation. It is critical to understand the fundamentals of the
regulatory process. These concepts will be discussed in detail.
Biotalknowledgey.pdf
• The pipeline. What’s next? What are some of the products in industry pipelines
and what problems could they solve? What are some of the products generated in
academic labs that could solve major world issues- yet are not candidates for
deregulation or commercialization?
B. Presentation. Participants will learn how to effectively engage public audiences and
share information.
• Understanding risk and public perception. Essentially a psychology lesson
about how the public responds to perceived risk. It is essential to understand how
the average non-scientist makes decisions in order to be effective at persuasion.
• How to persuade. This section will be a basic primer on rhetoric and argument
as applied to biotechnology. Concepts such as logos, ethos and pathos will be
discussed in the context of biotechnology. How is a concept viewed as sterile or
threatening to the public presented most effectively?
C. The Importance of Social Media. Claiming space and effective public engagement.
D. Student/postdoc Participation. There will be a competitive opportunity or six
Ph.D. students or postdocs interested in the topic of transgenic technology and science
communication. Their participant costs, airfare and lodging, will be covered by this
funding. The competition will be a simple essay as to the importance of the training to
their long-term endeavors in science.
We will strongly encourage participation from students in the Plant Molecular and
Cellular Biology program (pmcb.ifas.ufl.edu). This is a graduate program where at least
a subset of the students and postdocs will be eager to participate. I would anticipate
about 30-40 participants.
E. Wider Participation. The conference will be open to any student or postdoc, or
faculty member, that wishes to attend. There will be no cost to attend, but they will need
to cover their own transportation and lodging costs, and pre-registration will be
necessary. We will promote participation by county extension agents and local farmers.
Biotalknowledgey.pdf
The preliminary schedule for the 2014-2015 effort is:
September 2014- Los Angeles, CA Meet with journalist Cara Santa Maria for the
‘Talk Nerdy’ podcast. She has wanted to do a show on GMO and there have not been
resources to do it. The podcast has wide listenership. It is possible this effort will be a
live recording with public Q&A.
November 2014- N.C. State, Raleigh, NC
I was contacted by from Agronomy requesting that I assist in teaching I will be in
town for a biotechnology conference and will have no major costs to funding provided.
December 2014- University of California- Davis
January 2015- University of California San Diego; plus a session at the Plant Animal
Genome Conference
February 2015- Michigan State University or Oregon State University
March 2015- University of Hawaii, Manoa HI
I was invited by Dr. Anja Weiscorsek to visit their campus and provide on-site
discussion. I have close ties with the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association and they
will likely provide opportunities and funding for intra-island travel and discussion at
Farmer Forms.
April 2015- University of Wisconsin, Madison WI.
I have spoken with Dr. Rick Amasino about providing a discussion for students, faculty
and staff about biotechnology communications. A session will be provided on campus,
and discussion will be arranged at Willy St. Co-op, an organic foods co-op in town.
May 2015- Washington State University, Pullman, WI
June 2015- Purdue University, Lafayette, IN. includes farmer forum*
July 2015- On-campus training event at University of Florida
August 2015- Cornell University
September 2015- Auburn University, Auburn AL
October 2015- University of Georgia
Biotalknowledgey.pdf
Other Notes:
Assessment
We will need to gauge the effectiveness of the program. There will be two questionnaires,
one presented before and after each public seminar. The data will be assessed and used
to strengthen next efforts
Social Media Presence
Funds will be used to build and promote a Biotalknowledgey website at
www.biotalknowledgey.com that describes and promotes the activities of these events.
A twitter account has been established at @biotalknowledge
Accountability and Delieverables
A report of metrics, such as number of participants in public forums and in the training
sessions will be provided.
A report of expenses and how funds were used will be provided to the funding agency on
a quarterly basis.
Video presentations from the UF forum will be placed online using YouTube, as well as
via the Bio* talk* knowledge* y website. Video or audio from the individual forums will
also be presented online as available.
Biotalknowledgey.pdf
Budget- ($25,000)
There is no salary compensation for Folta. The work is voluntary, and part of the
expectations of his role as a public scientist.
1. Off-Campus Training. ($12,600) The plan is $1000 per off-campus training
session. This is the average cost, based on my minimal costs of:
• Economy-class air fare (<$600)
• Cheap hotel (<$ 100/night)
• Potential rental car (state contract rate is <$50/day)
• Reasonable per diem for meals (<$50?)
This budget should, on average, leave discretionary funds built for $200-400/session,
earmarked for:
• Purchasing light break refreshments (coffee, soda, water, etc)
• Rental costs for space for public dialog session if necessary
• Purchasing refreshments at the public event
• Meeting one-on-one with participants and public as necessary. These small-group
sessions have been shown to be the optimal opportunities to connect with those not
sharing enthusiasm for biotechnology.
• Promotion. Local paper ads, etc = $600
2. Two-Day Biotechnology Communications Training at University of Florida (UF).
($11,400) *
• Transportation, lodging and per diem for four keynote speakers ($1000 ea, $4000
total)
• Airfare and lodging allowance for six Ph.D. students or postdocs ($800; $4,800
total)
(Airfare to Gainesville, FL is more expensive than other cities, but usually is around
$500-600. Lodging at The Lodge at Gainesville is about $100 per night, including
breakfast, so two nights would be included for each paid participant)
• Rental fee for Emerson Alumni Hall (~$200/day; $400 total)
• Refreshments for breaks (~$200/day)
• Professional recording from UF/IFAS communications (~$500)
• Dinner for <75 participants, catered at $20 ea= $1500
3. Miscellaneous Items ($1000)
• Dedicated projector for use in these activities- $800
Biotalknowledgey.pdf
Domain name and server space for website (several years purchased up front,
email accounts, etc)- $200
Total Budget
The total budget is $25,000. If funded directly to the program as a SHARE contribution
(essentially unrestricted funds) it is not subject to IDC and is not in a “conflict-of-
interest” account. In other words, SHARE contributions are not publicly noted. This
eliminates the potential concern of the funding organization influencing the message.
From:
Sent time:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000] <carolyn.a.daly@monsanto.com>
07/16/2014 08:12:26 AM
Folta, Kevin M.
REYNOLDS, TRACEY L [AG/1000] <tracey.l.reynolds@monsanto.com>; REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000] <h.keith.reding@monsanto.com>;
DOBERT, RAYMOND C [AG/1000] <raymond.c.dobert@monsanto.com>; SACHS, ERIC S [AG/1000] <eric.s.sachs@monsanto.com>;
LOHUIS, MICHAEL M [AG/1000] <michael.m.lohuis@monsanto.com>; EPPARD, PHILIP J [AG/1000] <philip.j.eppard@monsanto.com>
RE: propsoal
W9 Aug 2013.pdf
Dr. Folta,
Per the email below, I will work with you to create an unrestricted grant payment in the amount of
$25,000. Can you please complete the attached \A0 including the address where the payment should be
sent and who it should be made payable to and I will get to work on processing this for payment.
Our Monsanto team would also like to identify some dates to have you come to St. Louis for a
presentation and find out how much time you will need for your presentation.
Please feel free to contact me with questions.
Thank you.
Carolyn Daly
Sr. Administrative Assistant | Monsanto | Stakeholder Engagement
800 North Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167
Mail zone : A2NA
TOT 314-694-2119 | El cadaly@monsanto.com
From: LOHUIS, MICHAEL M [AG/1000]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 12:12 AM
To: DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000]; EPPARD, PHILIP J [AG/1000]
Cc: REYNOLDS, TRACEY L [AG/1000]; REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000]; DOBERT, RAYMOND C
[AG/1000]; SACHS, ERIC S [AG/1000]; SCHLICHER, MARTHA A [AG/1000]
Subject: FW: propsoal
Phil,
Please see the proposal from Kevin Folta. Keith Reding is the point person working with
Kevin and helped bring this proposal forward. There are still some improvements that can be
made with help of Tracey, Keith, Ray and Eric but we'd like to go ahead and support this.
rrl
This is a great 3 -party approach to developing the advocacy that we're looking to develop.
Can you work with this group to improve the proposal and provide helpful feedback to Dr.
Folta?
Carolyn - As previously discussed in our CE budget meeting, we would like to support Dr.
Folta's proposal from the CE budget at the level of $25K as an unrestricted grant from FY14
budget. Can you reach out to Dr. Folta to get the information you need to provide this
funding? Please also work with Keith Reding to identify some dates that Dr. Folta could
travel to STL to give a seminar on "Bio*talk-knowledge*y" and meet with our team and
various individuals during the day (e.g. those on this message).
Thanks,
From:
DALY, CAROLYN A (AG/1000] ccarolyn.a daly@monsanto.com>
Sent time: Q8/0S/2014 12:35:33 PM
To . DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000] <carolyn.a.daly(S)monsanto.com>; Folta, Kevin M.; REDING, H KEITH (AG/1000]
<h.keith.reding(S)monsanto.com>
Subject: four Monsanto Chesterfield
Appointment
Required attendees:
Location:
Start time:
End time:
Meet Tour group at AA Lobby
Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:00:00 AM
Thursday, August 14, 2014 11:30:00 AM
When: Thursday, August 14, 2014 9:00 AM-10:30 AM (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US &
Canada).
Where: Meet Tour group at AA Lobby
Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.
This is a place holder for the Monsanto Chesterfield site tour for Kevin Folta and Keith
Reding. You will be joining another large group from Wynfield. Thank you.
Carolyn Daly
From:
DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000] <carolyn.a.daly@monsanto.com>
Sent time: 08/01/2014 04:37:36 PM
DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000] <carolyn.a.daly@monsanto.com>; EPPARD, PHILIP J [AG/1000]; BOYES, DOUG C [AG/1697]; BRAUN, CARL
[AG/2401]; BROWN, SHERRI M [AG/1005]; CALABOTTA, BETH J [AG/1000]; CALDWELL, DAVID G [AG/1005]; CAO, YONGWEI [AG/1005];
CONCIBIDO, VERGEL C [AG/1005]; CORREA-MORALES, ANA MARIA [AG/1005]; CRAWFORD, MICHAEL J [AG/1005]; CULLER, ANGELA
HENDRICKSON [AG/1000]; DOHLEMAN, FRANK G [AG/1005]; DONG, FENGGAO [AG/1005]; FABBRI, BRADON J [AG/1005]; FITZGERALD,
ALLISON C [AG/1000]; FREY, TRAVIS JAMES [AG/1697]; GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL A [AG/1000]; GREENPLATE, JOHN T [AG/1005]; HAUGE, BRIAN
[AG/1005]; HECK, GREGORY R [AG/1005]; HOOD, AIMEE [AG/1000]; KARUNANANDAA, BALA [AG/1005]; KEMPER, EDSON L [AG/6889];
KERSTETTER, RANDALL ALAN [AG/1005]; LOHUIS, MICHAEL M [AG/1000]; LUSSENDEN, ROGER L [AG/1993]; MAJEE, DIANAH [AG/1005];
MILLER, WILLIAM H [AG/1000]; MONTEZUMA, MARCELO C [AG/5050]; NARENDRA, SAVITHA [AG/1000]; NICKELL, ANDREW D [AG/1886];
PETRACEK, MARIE E [AG/1005]; PETRICK, JAY S [AG/1000]; PITKIN, JOHN W [AG/1005]; PRADO, JOSE RAFAEL [AG/1005]; REDING, H KEITH
[AG/1000]; REMUND, KIRK M [AG/1005]; RICE, ELENA A [AG/1005]; RITER, LEAH S [AG/1000]; SACHS, ERIC S [AG/1000]; SALTMIRAS, DAVID
A [AG/1000]; SAMMONS, R DOUGLAS [AG/1000]; SCHNEIDER, KRISTIN A [AG/1000]; 5EHABIAGUE, PIERRE [AG/8080]; SHARMA, VIJAY
[AG/1005]; SIVASUPRAMANIAM, SAKUNTALA [AG/1000]; SLOMCZYNSKA, URSZULA J [AG/1005]; SPENCER, MICHAEL [AG/2551]; STAUB,
JEFFREY M [AG/1005]; STEPHENS, MIKE-CORN [AG/1005]; SWARTHOUT, JOHN T [AG/1000]; TURNER, CATHERINE LOUISE [AG/1000];
To:
VICINI, JOHN L [AG/1000]; VOELKER, TONI [AG/1983]; WARD, JASON M [AG/1000]; WARNOCK, DANIEL F [AG/1005]; YAN, JIA [AG/1005];
YATES, JENNIFER [AG/1005]; YE, XUDONG [AG/1005]; COFFMAN, KEVIN D [AG/1000]; HENSON, MARK [AG/1000]; BOYD. LAKISHA T
[AG/1000]; DOBERT, RAYMOND C [AG/1000]; GLICK, HARVEY L [AG/5340]; HORAK, MICHAEL J [AG/1000]; KURTYKA, LUCYNA K [AG/1920];
LEBBING, BRITTANIA MARIE [AG/1000]; LI, YUE JIN [AG/1000]; NAIR, RASHMI S [AG/1000]; REEVES, WILLIAM R [AG/1000]; Folta, Kevin
M.; REYNOLDS, TRACEY L [AG/1000]; SCHLICHER, MARTHA A [AG/1000]; QUARLES, LEE [AG/1000]; NEU, JEFFREY W [AG/1000]; COMBEST,
JOHN C [AG/1000]; SCADUTO, CARLY A [AG/1000]; ALTEMUS, JIM R [AG-Contractor/1000]; JONES, ERIN [AG/1005]; ERICSON, BECKY
[AG/1000]; ROBINSON, CHELSEY K [AG/1000]; FUCHS, DANIELLE M [AG-Contractor/1000]; VOSNIDOU, NANCY C [AG/1000]; WILSON,
THOMAS P [AG/1000]; GAO, WEI [AG/6000]; MODENA, NATALIA [AG/5000]; : <RAMAMOHAN, G [AG/8036]>; : <RUBINSTEIN, CLARA P
[AG/5000]>; : <SALAMINI, ALESSANDRA [AG/6042]>; : <SOTERES, JOHN K [AG-Contractor/1000]>; : <TINLAND, BRUNO [AG/5040]>; :
<ANDRADE, ROGERIO W [AG/5050]>; : ARMSTRONG, CHARLES L [AG/1005]>; : <BODDUPALLI, SEKHAR 5 [AG/2401]>; : <DESPEGHEL, JEAN-
PIERRE [AG/6063]>; : <EDGERTON, MIKE [AG/2551]>; : <EVDOKIMOV, ARTEM [AG/1005]>; : <GILBERTSON, LARRY A [AG/2076]>; : <GLENN,
KEVIN C [AG/1000]>; : <HARRIGAN, GEORGE G [AG/1000]>; : <HOLLAND, GREGORY J [AG/2496]>; : <LUETHY, MICHAEL [AG/1000]>; : <POPI,
JON (AG/2559]>; : <SEMMEL, TERRY W [AG/1000]>; ;;;;;;;;;;;;
Subject: Seminar and Discussion - "Reframing Biotechnology Communication" - Dr. Kevin Folta, University of Florida
Appointment
Required attendees:
Location: Monsanto Chesterfield - BB2415/Webex
Start time: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 4:00:00 PM
End time: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 5:30:00 PM
When: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:00 PM-4:30 PM (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US &
Canada).
Where: Monsanto Chesterfield - BB2415/Webex
Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.
Dr. Kevin Folta of the University of Florida will present a seminar and discussion
on "Reframing Biotechnology Communication." Dr. Folta is Professor and Chairman of the
Horticultural Sciences Department and active in the Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology
and Plant Innovation programs. His research focus is functional genomics of small fruit
quality and use of light wavelengths to modulate fruit flavor and postharvest attributes.
He has published two seminal texts in fruit genomics and over 70 peer-reviewed
manuscripts. He has led the International Strawberry Genome Sequencing Consortium that
published the 12th completed plant genome in 2011, received the NSF CAREER Award, an
HHMI Mentoring Award, and was recognized as "University of Florida Foundation Research
Professor" in 2010.
Dr. Folta's seminar is also part of the series of opportunities to see different styles of
presenting biotechnology, how to exchange perspectives on best ways to address issues,
and glean from his experiences. Schedule permitting, please plan on attending and feel
free to invite others to attend either in person or by WebEx.
Host: Keith Reding, Regulatory Policy Lead, RPSA, 4-6615
CAROLYN DALY invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 809 419 447
Meeting Password: This meeting does not require a password.
To join this meeting (Now from mobile devices!)
1. Go to https://monsanto.webex.eom/monsanto/j. php?J=809419447
2. If requested, enter your name and email address.
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: This meeting does not require a
password.
4. Click "Join".
5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen.
Teleconference information
1. Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back. Alternatively, you
can call one of the following numbers:
Monsanto Audio: 1-314-694-5212
USA/Canada Toll Free: 1-855-694-5212
Argentina Toll Free: 0800-333-2255
2. Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone.
Your Cisco Unified MeetingPlace meeting ID: 809 419 447
http://www.webex.co m
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000] <carolyn.a.daly@monsanto.com>
08/07/2014 08:47:01 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
Re: Hotel for Visit to St. Louis
Will you send me an invoice or should I do a check request for your payment? Thank you.
Carolyn Daly
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 6, 2014, at 9:42 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." < kfolta@ufl.edu > wrote:
Thanks Carolyn,
That's all they need, otherwise we have to deal with overhead. I'm grateful for this
opportunity and promise a solid return on the investment. Thank you for all of your
assistance.
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Plant Innovation Program
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
" Don’t tell me what can’t be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do it.” -
Norman Borlaug.
Illumination (blog) http://kfolta.bloqspot.com
Twitter @kevinfolta
From: DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000] rcarolyn.a.dalv@monsanto.coml
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 10:31 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: RE: Hotel for Visit to St. Louis
Kevin,
Attached is the letter you requested. Please notify me if this needs to be changed.
Thank you.
Carolyn Daly
Sr. Administrative Assistant | Monsanto (Stakeholder Engagement
800 north Lindbergh blvd., St. Louis, mo 63167
Mail zone : A2NA
MONSANTO
Monsanto Company
800 North Lindbergh Blvd
St. Louis, Missouri 63167
Phone (314)694-1000
http://www.monsanto.com
August 8, 2014
Dr. Kevin Folta
University of Florida
Environmental Horticulture
1533 Fifield Hall
P.O. Box 110670
Gainesville, FL 32611
Dear Dr. Folta,
Please accept this unrestricted grant in the amount of $25,000.00 which may be used at your
discretion in support of your research and outreach projects. The payment will be sent from
Monsanto Accounts Payable in the near future.
Sincerely,
Mike Lohuis, Ph.D.
Director, Scientific Engagement
Monsanto Company
From;
REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000] <h.keith.rcding@monsanto.com>
08/1 1/2014 06:04:06 PM
Sent time:
T° : kevin.foIta@gmail.com; Folta, Kevin M.
EPPARD, PHILIP J [AG/1000] <philip.j.eppard@monsanto.com>; DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000] <caroIyn.a.daly@monsanto.com>;
Cc: BOYD, LAKISHA T [AG/1000] <lakisha.t.boyd@monsanto.com>; DOBERT, RAYMOND C [AG/1000]
<rayinond.c.dobert@monsanto.com>
Subject: Folta visit Monsanto Ininerary
Attachments: p 0 j ta iii ncra jy Monsanto Visit.docx
Dr. Kevin Folta Visit to Monsanto Itinerary
Wednesday, August 13
2:30 pm - arrive at the Monsanto Chesterfield campus. 700 Chesterfield Pkwy W, Chesterfield,
MO 630 1 7. Stop at the front gate to get a visitor parking pass. Drive past the construction and
turn left. Park in visitor parking. I will meet you at the front entrance of A building to get your
visitor pass.
3:00 - 4:30 pm - seminar “Reframing Biotechnology Communication” in room
BBBB2415/Webex; I will run the Webex from my computer. We can transfer the presentation on a
flash drive.
5:00 pm- check into hotel. Room is prepaid by Monsanto.
Hotel DRURY PLAZA CHESTERFIELD
LOCATION CONTACT
355 CHESTERFIELD CENTER EAST Tel 636-532-3300
CHESTERFIELD, MO US 63017 Fax 800-470-0326
Reserved For
KEVIN FOLTA
Status
Confirmed
Check-In
Aug 13, 2014
Check-Out
Aug 15, 2014
Number of
Rooms
1
Rate
USD 96.00/night
Cancellation
Policy
Cancel by 6PM
7: 15 pm - meet Phil Eppard in the lobby for Dinner at Annie Gunn’s. Several others will attend.
Thursday, August 14
7:30 am. Breakfast with Mike Lohuis at Drury Hotel.
9:00 am - Tour of Chesterfield
10 am - Optional Seminar “Weeding out the truth - What can we learn from and about organic
farming?” by Carl Jones, Vegetable Trait Integration Strategy Lead, and former organic farmer or
Continue last 30 min of tour.
1 1 :30 — Drive to Creve Coeur Campus
12:00 - Lunch in A cafe with Cliff Lawson to discuss Monsanto’s NEO program for Technology
Acquisition.
1 :30 - 5:00 - Discussion with Monsanto folks. Odessy Room, D building. People may come and
go during this time, depending on their schedules.
5:00 — Travel back to Chesterfield
7: 1 5 — Dinner hosted by Keith Reding at the Wildhorse Grill, 1 0 1 Chesterfield Towne Center
Chesterfield, MO 63005 Cross Street: Long Road (636) 532-8750. Keith will pick up Kevin at
7:00 at the Drury Inn.
Friday, August 15 - travel back to Florida
Keith Reding, Ph.D.
314-694-6615 W
314-809-9624 C
*
twitter.com/KeithReding
From:
DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/IOOO] <caro!yn.a.daly@monsanto.com>
08/05/2014 01:03:04 PM
Sent time:
REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000] <h.keith.reding@monsanto.com>; LOHUIS, MICHAEL M [AG/ 1 000] <michacl.m.iohuis@monsanto.com>;
Folia, Kevin M.
Subject: Breakfast with Kevin Folia
When: Thursday, August 14, 2014 7:30 AM-8:45 AM (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada).
Where: Meet at drury Plaza Hotel Chesterfield
Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.
Aug 23 2014 Kevin Folta Blogspot
htto://kf oft a . b lo aspot .com/201 4/06/ unive rsitv-of-f lo ri d as-dee d- mo n sa nto . htm I
University of Florida's Deep Monsanto Ties
Last week I was so happy to answer a thousand thoughtful questions on Science Reddit. Many
questions were moderator blocked (which I discouraged), so angry queries found a home over on
the "Kevin Folta Monsanto Cheerleader” reddit thread.
reddit
CONSPIRACY
related other discussions (1)
Monsanto cheerleader/'scientist'
submitted 3
days ego by
408 comments share save hide give gold
Kevi n Folta had an AMA today..
report
Monsanto cheerleader? And then they put the word scientist in quotes . They are convinced
V*m a corporate cheerleader and not a scientist Shows how welt they know me and what i
do.
I'm really proud to say that I'm a Professor at UF. I work with some of the best science minds out
there and am always humbled by the amazing work going on here. That's no secret. But Monsanto
Cheerleader? When I told them that I had no formal connection to Monsanto (other than visiting
there last week to talk about how they could improve their outreach, first time ever there), GM
opponents scoured the web, searching for any morsel of evidence to connect me to deep financial
collusion with the Big M.
They were certain they had me busted. Clearly, billions of dollars were flowing from Monsanto right
into my lab and into my pocket, and in return I'd sacrifice my life's duty, 30 years of training,
reputation and legacy to lie about science on an obscure website that calls me a cheerleader.
Makes perfect sense.
Here are their claims:
t
+
[-] thefuckingto-e 'S] -4 points 3 days age
Hey /u/Prof_kevm_folta, since your handlers won't allow any questions that show you are a paid shill for Monsanto, why not come
here to debate those who know you're peddling faith as science?
IVe seen your same cheer leading in the huff post. You are paid to spread disinformation about GMOs with no science to back you
up. Here's a comment showing the ties between the university you work for and Monsanto:
Cargill. Inc.. Dow Chemical Co. & Monsanto Co. give millions to the University of Florida:
htt p://www. uff. ufl . ed u/An n u a I Re po rt/H o n o rRo I I/P C/
UoF scientists collaborate with Monsanto, http://news.ifas.ufl.edu/2011/10/uf-scientists-collaborate-with-monsanto-to-develop-
i m proved-c o m put e r-m od el-fo r-c o rn-prod uct i o n/
Monsanto supports a professorship in his department. http://www.uff.ufl.edu/FacultyEndowments/Professorshiplnfo.asp?
ProfessorshipFund=007489
Folta claims he's an "independent contractor" for the state of Florida, [http:.?'w-vvw.huffingtonpost.com/social/kevinfolta/genetically-
modified-food_n_1 690653_1 76992979. html) but his website (http://www.kevinfolta.com/about.html} says he was tenured in 2008.
He isn't an independent contractor.
Since he and his friends benefit from gifts and business with Monsanto, he needs to disclose that conflict of interest rather than
pretending independence.
htt p://www. h uffi ngt o n po st . c o m/2 0 1 2/0 8/0 7/g enetical ly-m o d ifi e d -fo od_n_1 690S53.html
Don't let the hot chick with a lip ring throw you off. This is a propaganda piece that Huff Po produced.
permalink save report give gold reply
They EVIDENCE! SMOKING GUN! Here they have utilized high-end web sleuthing to
undeniably connect me to the Monsanto Corporation!
Let's look at those brilliant connections.
But first, let's start with reality. I work for the University of Florida, we are the State's Land-Grant
University. There are 4,000 faculty. Our central job is to educate the public, perform cutting-edge
research, and communicate that research to citizens in our state. That's the Land Grant mission.
Our area, IFAS, receives about $80 million a year in research support. Most of that is federal and
state, with 3% coming from corporate sources. Of that, maybe $200-400k come from Monsanto
annually to specific research programs. In other words, they pay for work to be done here in a lab
(not mine) and finance maybe a postdoc to two. This is small potatoes. Nobody sees any of that
money outside of the lab that is being compensated for the work.
To his claims:
1. Cargill Inc, Dow Chemical and Monsanto give millions to the University of Florida -
SMOKING GUN!! Not so much. The first page goes to a dead link. I guess that still convinces some
of the Monspiracy.
2. U of F Scientists Collaborate with Monsanto - SMOKING GUN!! Not so much. The article is
about two UF researchers that worked in collaboration with Monsanto in 201 1 to develop public-
domain software to help model corn growth in the southeast. These simulation models help farmers
make choices in a changing climate. From what I can tell, I can find no evidence that there was any
funding to UF associated with this relationship. It is not on Dr. Boote's CV or in the UF grants
database.
3. Monsanto supports a professorship in his department -- SMOKING GUN. Not so much. That evil
Monsanto had the audacity to provide funding to hire a new professor. Fifteen years ago. The
nerve. In the days when budgets are cut, faculty hires are few, and students need more science
training, it is shameful that they'd actually provide a way for us to expand service to the citizens of
out state.
Yes, Monsanto did put up part of the funding for Mark's appointment. The funny part is, he has no
associations with them and his research is not of direct impact to Monsanto's interests.
Plus it happened two years before I joined UF. BUT... that's the best they can find...
4. Folta claims he's an "independent contractor" for the State of Florida -- SMOKING GUN. Not so
much. Here the author of the post cherry picks a line from a comment thread and tries to use it to
discredit me on the page. The exact quote is: "I'm an independent contractor that works for the
State of Florida. They give me a paycheck and a lab space. Every test tube, person, bag of soil, etc.
comes from grants that I apply for. Period."
This is how we sometimes represent ourselves in university science. There is no magical funding that comes
from the institution that pays for our research. We pay for it, from grants. We're small business operators. We
have employees, tight budgets, and expected deliverables.
Sure, our paychecks for teaching and research come from the state, but they give nothing toward our research
work. In fact, from a 3-year $500,000 NSF grant our institution gets about $250,000 of it for "administration
and facilities" to keep the paperwork straight and the lights on.
Finally, it is sad to see someone dig through the web in an attempt to discredit someone that works
for them. Rather than ask for information, explanations, assistance in learning, they want to tear
down scientists that don't subscribe to their warped views (which is all of the scientists).
I guess it should be noted that Monsanto and other companies sponsor websites like
GMOanswers.com where I answer questions. For free. Maybe that's a connection.
Sad. At least he didn't go after the "hot chick with the lip ring" (last line of image above, in reference
to Cara Santa Maria on the HuffPo video). Maybe if I get a lip ring he'll give me a pass too.
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Folta, Kevin M.
09/30/2014 05:04:12 PM
DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] (lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com) <lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com>
alternative idea...
Lisa,
Might it be possible to just ask the powers that be to do an 'unrestricted gift' for the amount to UF? I can
then just charge the travel to that account.
I could fill out the W9 etc, but then HI end up getting taxed on the dollars as income and then have to
counter that with my charges. Not a huge deal, but extra paper and time, long after my brain is erased.
If it is convenient it would be helpful, but it is not necessary.
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32606
352-273-4812
Don’t tell me it can’t be done. Tell me what to do and help me do it.” - Norman Borlaug
Hi Peggy,
No, if we're reimbursing the prof for his travel and incidentals we
can't process it as an unrestricted gift to the University. It should
pay directly to him.
Have a good day,
Mary
From: LEVINE, PEGGY A [AG/ 1000]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 9:43 AM
To: HURST, MARY E [AG/1000]
Subject: FW: alternative idea...
Hi Mary,
We need to reimburse a professor for his travel and
incidentals for a conference he attended for us. I asked him
for a w-9 so I could process it as an invoice, one-time
vendor, and he proposed we reimburse him as an
“unrestricted gift” to the university. I have never done it this
way before - is this possible?
Thanks,
Peggy Levine
From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:36 PM
To: LEVINE, PEGGY A [AG/1000]
Subject: Fwd: alternative idea...
Can you check into this? and if it is possible? Lisa
Lisa Drake
Lead, Monsanto State and Local Government Affairs
Lisa.m.drake(5)monsanto.com
303-514-5533
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Folta, Kevin M." < kfolta(5)ufl.edu >
Date: September 30, 2014 at 2:04:12 PM PDT
To: "DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]
(lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com) "
< lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com >
Subject: alternative idea...
Lisa,
Might it be possible to just ask the powers that be
to do an 'unrestricted gift' for the amount to UF? I
can then just charge the travel to that account.
I could fill out the W9 etc, but then l"ll end up
getting taxed on the dollars as income and then
have to counter that with my charges. Not a huge
From:
Folta, Kevin M.
Sent time:
10/07/2014 12:38:52 PM
To:
DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] <lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com>
Subject:
RE: alternative idea...
Attachments:
2014 10 07 12 38 22.pdf
Hi Lisa,
Here's my form. Sorry for the delay, and hope we can work together sometime soon again.
Kevin
From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] [mailto:lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:06 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: Re: alternative idea...
We appreciate your expertise and commentary - 1 think it is so helpful for stakeholders to hear a balanced
view - Lisa
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 6, 2014, at 2:05 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." < kfolta@ufl.edu > wrote:
Will do. Just finished in PA. Went well. I think Benbrook is seeing the light, but Seneff is
crazy!!!
Kevin
Sent from my phone.
On Oct 6, 2014, at 12:29 PM, "DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]" < lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com >
wrote:
Hope this can work - please send the W9 as well, and sorry for any
inconvenience. Lisa
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "LEVINE, PEGGY A [AG/1000]"
< peggy. a. levine@monsanto.com >
Date: October 6, 2014 at 11:23:06 AM CDT
To: "DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]" < lisa. m.drake@monsanto.com >
Subject: FW: alternative idea...
I will need a W-9 from him to reimburse.
Peggy
From: HURST, MARY E [AG/1000]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 11:20 AM
To: LEVINE, PEGGY A [AG/1000]
Subject: RE: alternative idea...
From:
Sent time:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
DRAKE. LISA M [AG/1000] ^lisa.m. drakc@monsanto.com''
09/18/2014 10:40:41 AM
Folia. Kevin M
SACHS. ERIC S [AG/1000] <enc. s.sachs@monsanto.com>
Colorado
Kevin:
Thank you, thank you! By all measures, our Farm to Table Harvest event was a big success Tuesday evening,
and you were a large part of that success. As you recall, our target audience was the presidents or directors
of the many biomedical and device companies headquartered in the Boulder area, in an effort to get them
more comfortable with ag biotechnology and the applications of the technology in agriculture. Of course,
we also had Boulder County staff there and the farmers who are the backbone of the community. Many
people were invigorated by your positive and uplifting talk and the need to speak out. It was also nice to
meet Roxanne.
Dr. Staehelin had several suggestions following the dinner, and was impressed by your ability to
communicate. He had a great idea around the Guinness Book of World Records on the large animal review
you mentioned - clever idea to gain media around that "billion" animals studied and they are as safe and
healthy as ever before.
The dinner gave the staff at Boulder County some thoughts about additional education and celebrations of
co-existence in agriculture in the county -so great outcomes.
I haven't forgotten about your question about CE credits with the Seeds of Doubt conference. I asked
someone to follow up on that and I will see her for lunch today so will come back to you as soon as I can. I
saw you had been writing on that already! Hope you made it back without complications - Best --
Lisa Drake
Monsanto Company
Lead, U.S. State and Local Government Affairs
9816 Glenstone Trail
Highlands Ranch CO 80130
303-514-5533
lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Cathleen Enright <cenright@bio.org>
09/25/2014 1 1 :0J :19 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
Re: suggestions
Hi Kevin. Thanks very much for your help today. What an experience. I finished up the outstanding
Qs tonight. Thanks also for supporting for the upcoming hearing. I have travel funding available
under CBI/ GMO Answers but please stay in a nicer hotel :) Ok for you to use this? Warm
regards, Cathy
Cathleen Enright, PhD
Executive Vice President
Food & Agriculture
The Biotechnology Industry Organization
1201 Maryland Ave, SW Ste 900
Washington DC 20024
202 962 6644
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 25, 2014, at 10:42 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." < kfolta[%ifl.edtt > wrote:
Cathy,
Good stuff today. I didn't want to chime in-- but had to on that one issue.
Can you give me some guidance? I was asked by Pennsylvania Representative John Maher
to participate in a hearing of the Agriculture Committee on October 6. They have pressure
to push a labeling bill forward and he wants it killed with science.
He invited me up to give a presentation and answer questions. They're also bringing in
Mortensen from Penn State and Seneff. Sounds like fun. I've dealt with both before and
this will be simple.
The problem is that they have no support for my travel. I don't really have it here in my
program or department that I could use for such things. It would not be appropriate.
Can you point me to potential industry sources, maybe even BIO? I'd need a cheap plane
ticket (<$400), a night in a motel 6 and a rental car to go from Philadelphia to Harrisburg.
I can fly to Harrisburg directly but it is a 16 hour trip and $800 ticket. If industry can put
me in that room, I'll save them a few bucks down the road...
Thanks.
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Plant Innovation Program
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
w Don't tell me what can't be done. Tell me what needs to be done , and let me do it.” -
Norman Borlaug.
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Calhleen Enright <cenright@bio,org>
09/25/2014 11:15:34 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
Rc: suggestions
I'm glad this will work. No need to endure hardship! Our guide is to approach spending as you
would on your own time. All that is needed are receipts: airfare, car rental, gas, hotel and meals
We turn around reimbursement pretty quickly. I'm in the office all day tomorrow for a chat and
will be on the call too. Thanks again for your tireless voice.
Cathleen Enright, PhD
Executive Vice President
Food & Agriculture
The Biotechnology Industry Organization
1 20 1 Maryland Ave, S W Ste 900
Washington DC 20024
202 962 6644
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 25, 2014, at 1 1 :02 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." < k foilafrjufl.edu > wrote:
Cathy,
It would be very helpful. This is important, and I'd end up financing it personally. I'll keep
it cheap. Thank you for the suggestion.
Maybe talk to you tomorrow? I'll be on the conference call.
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Plant Innovation Program
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
“Don't tell me what can't be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do it." -
Norman Bortaug.
Illumination (blog) http : / / k folta. b I pot.co m
Twitter @kevinfolta
From: Cathleen Enright r cenriqht@bio.orq l
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 11:01 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: Re: suggestions
Hi Kevin. Thanks very much for your help today. What an experience. I finished up the outstanding Qs tonight.
Thanks also for supporting for the upcoming hearing. I have travel funding available under CBI/ GMO Answers
but please stay in a nicer hotel :) Ok for you to use this? Warm regards, Cathy
Cathleen Enright, PhD
Executive Vice President
Food & Agriculture
The Biotechnology Industry Organization
1201 Maryland Ave, SW Ste 900
From: Barnes, Carly [mailto:Carly.Barnes@ketchum.com]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 11:05 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: RE: assign me questions
Thank you! !
From: Folta, Kevin M. rmailto:kfolta@ufl.edu1
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 6:02 PM
To: Barnes, Carly
Subject: RE: assign me questions
How much have the biotech companies donated to the Horticultural Sciences Department, University of
Florida?
A: We get this question a lot, mostly because UF faculty do take the time to help actively clarify biotech
concepts for public audiences. Some folks immediately question the integrity of public scientists that step
out of the lab and talk to the public, inferring some level of financial motivation. That's sad, because
communicating science is an important part of our job.
But to answer the question is that there are zero "donations". At least over the last five years (all I checked),
there are not even any grants or research agreements between the Horticultural Sciences Department at
UF from any company selling biotech seeds. It is a horticulture department that focuses on traditional plant
breeding, organic production, conventional production, physiology, biochemistry and genomics of fruits
and vegetables, none of which are transgenic (GMO). The transgenic crops are corn, soy, alfalfa, etc-
stuff not really grown in Florida anyway, at least in terms of major acreage.
Over the last five years at the WHOLE UNIVERSITY there were a total of $21 ,000 in monsanto grants to
one faculty member in the panhandle who studies weeds. That's it for the whole university.
Our records are all public, so anyone could have found this information.
Fifteen years ago the Monsanto company provided funds to hire a professor. That person (Dr. Mark
Settles) does work in cellular biology and development, and is 100% government funded. He does no work
related to biotech crops, and it is a good thing when companies finance positions to help educate our
students and perform important research.
The question asked raises an unfortunate point- the perception that some company can buy or control what
public scientists say. You'll never find a more independent group of scientists dedicated to working in the
public interest than you'll find here. There is no price tag on that commitment.
Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Plant Innovation Program
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
" Don’t tell me what can’t be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do it.” - Norman Borlaug.
Illumination (blog) http://kfolta.bloqspot.com
Twitter @kevinfolta
Home
M
About John
Contact
Video
Photo Gallery
District Links
Environmental Resources and
Energy Committee
Government Links
Legislative Expenses
Pennsylvania 21 1 Southwest
State Information
Teacher's Resource Guide
DISTRICT
MAP
Scientists to Testify About GMO Foods, Maher Says
C£
10/3/2014
HARRISBURG - Rep. John Maher (R-Allegheny/Washington), chairman of the House Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Committee, has called a committee meeting for testimony from scientists who are recognized
nationally for their knowledge of genetically engineered foods. The scientists will inform the committee
about the nature of genetically modified organisms [GMOs>and their role in today's agriculture.
J Although federal legislation to address GMO labeling and safety has stalled, recent action in other states
toward mandated labeling of GMO food has captured the attention of Pennsylvania residents who are
urging legislative action." said Maher. "I believe education should precede legislation, and I am holding this
hearing to educate legislators on the subject."
The informational meeting will be held on Monday, Oct. 6, beginning at 9 a. m. in the House Majority
Caucus Room r Room 140, Main Capitol in Harrisburg.
Maher and members of the committee will hear testimony from the following nationally recognized
scientists: Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D.. senior research scientist MIT Computer Science and Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory; Kevin M. Folta, Ph.D,., professor and chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department,
University of Florida; Val Giddings, Ph.D.. senior fellow. Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation. Washington. DC.; Chuck Gen brook, Ph.D., manager. Measure to Manage (M2M) Farm and
Food Diagnostics for Sustainability and Health. Washington State University; and. from Penn State. John
Tooker, Ph.D., associate professor of Entomology and extension specialist: Troy Off. Ph.D.. PAS, professor
of Reproductive Physiology: and Dave Mortensen. Ph.D., professor of Weed and Applied Plant Ecology.
The meeting will be streamed LIVE at www . Re p Ma he r.co m . beginning at 9 a.m.
Media contact: Donna Pinkham, 717.260^5452. dDinkhan@DahouseooD.com
Representative John Maher
40th District
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Media Contact: Donna Pinkham
717.260.6452
d p i n kha m @ p a h o useao p xo m
www. Re pMaher.com
View More Articles
BShare | [JQQQ
From:
Sent time:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
DRAKE, I. IS A M [AG/1000J <Iisa.m.drakc@monsanto.com>
10/03/2014 04:46:50 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
OBRIEN, KIMBERLY [AG/1000] <kimbcrly.obricn@monsanto.com>
F\V: See below: PA hearing agenda. Op-ed in MA from Rep. Dykema
Kevin: I see you follow Benbrook - he will hammer at all sorts of draconian issues as a result of biotech
crops, especially pesticide increased use. However, it needs to be pointed out that insecticide use has
dramatically decreased - Barfoot and Brooks study documents, as does ISAAA. Also - Benbrook is fond of
saying he is with a public university, but he is also funded by MANY organic interests as well, rarely
discloses. Good luck -you will be great.
Lisa
From: John Heffernan [mailto:John.Heffernan@massblo.org]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 11:23 AM
To: Ab Basu; Alan Ayers; alien . Scarborough; Charles Leitgeb; ckennedy@blo.org; David J. McQuade;
Debra Vanderbeek; dennls.kelly@syngenta.com; dvanderbeek@leg-sol.com; Elizabeth M. Gemskl;
goodrich@graymedlagroup.com; Jason.D.Gonzalez@dupont.com; Jay Bonitt; Jeff Blackwood; Jennifer
Daly; Kate Hall; kbatra@bio.org; kgrant@thekarolgroup.com; DRAKE, USA M [AG/1000]; Margaret
Laggis; OBRIEN, KIMBERLY [AG/1000]; Paul Flake; Provost; pwhite@thekarolgroup.com; Rick; Robert
Gray; Robert Tardy
Subject: See below: PA hearing agenda, Op-ed in MA from Rep. Dykema
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Introduction to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
October 6, 2014 9:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.
Room 140 Main Capitol, Harrisburg
AGENDA
9:00 a.m. Call to order— Representative John Maher, Chairman
9:05 Dr. Troy Ott, Ph.D.
Professor of Reproductive Physiology
The Pennsylvania State University
9:30 John Tooker, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Entomology and Extension Specialist
The Pennsylvania State University
9:50 David Mortensen, Ph.D.
Professor of Weed and Applied Plant Ecology
The Pennsylvania State University
10:10 Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist
MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
10:30 Chuck Benbrook, Ph.D.
Manager, Measure to Manage (M2M)
Farm and Food Diagnostics for Sustainability and Health
Washington State University
10:50
Kevin M. Folta, Ph.D.
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
University of Florida
11:10
L. Val Giddings, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, D.C.
11:30
Adjourn
*******************************************************************************+********
by Representative Carolyn Dykema
October 1, 2014
Representative Dykema Editorial: The Case for Labeling "GMO" Food
Several years ago I had never heard of GMO food. Today, increasing consumer interest has led some
companies, like Whole Foods Markets, to voluntarily adopt GMO labeling requirements on all of their
products by 2018.
GMO food is defined by the World Health Organization as "food with DNA that has been altered in such a
way that does not occur naturally."
Whether we know it or not, most of us have eaten genetically modified "GMO" food since it became
common in 1994. A common example is Bt corn, found in a wide range of products containing corn syrup,
such as most baked goods and juices.
As the public becomes more aware of the extensive use of GMOs in food products, discussion is increasing
exponentially. A quick internet search of "GMO food" reveals the extent of the dialogue which includes
efforts across the country to pass legislation requiring consumer labeling of products produced with GMOs.
What are the concerns with GMOs?
Many highlight unknown long-term health impacts of genetically modified foods. Some studies suggest that
the increasing prevalence of food allergies may be due, at least in part, to our increased consumption of
foods containing GMOs. Additional studies raise other health concerns that merit further attention.
In addition to public health worries, there are concerns about impacts on the world's food supply, including
evidence suggesting GMO crops may harm pollinators like bees and butterflies which are essential to food
production. While yet others speculate that over time the use of GMO seeds, which are protected by
intellectual property law, may restrict the world's seed supply to ownership by only a few large
corporations.
All of these concerns are troubling and merit further study. However, there's a compelling reason to act
today on GMO labeling. And that reason is rooted in an unlikely place: capitalism.
The success of the American economy, the strongest and most innovative in the world, lies in capitalism. As
a capitalist society we believe that our economic prosperity is tied to a simple formula: companies that
respond to the needs of the consumer prosper, while those that don't, fail. This model assumes that
consumers have enough information - including information about whether their food contains GMOs - to
make informed choices about their purchases.
Providing consumers with GMO labeling is good for competitive markets and supports informed consumer
choice. Most important, it's good for the public which has the right to know and to choose what's in the
food we eat and feed our families.
Now is the time for the legislature to act on GMO labeling.
State Representative Carolyn Dykema represents the towns of Holliston, Hopkinton, Southborough and
Westborough (pet. 2) and has served on the Committee on the Environment, Natural Resources, and
Agriculture since 2009.
This e-mail message may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] <lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com>
10/07/2014 12:41:51 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
Re: alternative idea...
Thanks - we will process - Lisa
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 7, 2014, at 1 1:38 AM, "Folta, Kevin M." < kfolta@ufl.edu > wrote:
Hi Lisa,
Here's my form. Sorry for the delay, and hope we can work together sometime soon again.
Kevin
From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] r mailto:lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com 1
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:06 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: Re: alternative idea...
We appreciate your expertise and commentary - 1 think it is so helpful for stakeholders to
hear a balanced view - Lisa
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 6, 2014, at 2:05 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." < kfolta@ufl.edu > wrote:
Will do. Just finished in PA. Went well. I think Benbrook is seeing the light, but
Seneff is crazy!!!
Kevin
Sent from my phone.
On Oct 6, 2014, at 12:29 PM, "DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]"
< lisa. m.drake@monsanto.com > wrote:
Hope this can work - please send the W9 as well, and sorry for
any inconvenience. Lisa
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "LEVINE, PEGGY A [AG/1000]"
< peggy. a.levine@monsanto.com >
Date: October 6, 2014 at 11:23:06 AM CDT
To: "DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]"
< lisa. m.drake@monsanto.com >
Subject: FW: alternative idea...
I will need a W-9 from him to reimburse.
Peggy
OBRIEN, KIMBERLY (AG/1000] <kimbcrly obnentf? monsanto com '
10/07/2014 10:06:55 PM
Val (inklings <lvg(r?outlook com>; Folta, Kevin M
Fwd: House Ag Committee mtg
House Agriculture Mtg 10-6-14. docx ATT0000l.htm
Val, Kevin,
Thanks again for participating in this important policy event. Transcript is attached for your
information. - Kimberly
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Begin forwarded message:
From: MeeCee Baker < MBaker@ versantstrate»ies.net>
Date: October 7. 2014 at 7:58:54 PM CDT
To: "’ kimbeiiv.obrien@monsanto.com 1 " < kiinberlv.obrien@monsanto.com>
Subject: Fw: House Ag Committee mtg
FYI
MeeCee Baker, PhD
President/CEO
Versant Strategies
116 North Pine Street
5th Floor
Harrisburg PA 17101
Cell - 717-860-8463
Office - 717-635-2320
www.versantstrateeies.net
From: Debbie Chappell
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 08:30 PM
To: MeeCee Baker
Subject: House Ag Committee mtg
From yesterday's meeting as recorded by PLS
Debbie Chappell
Versant Strategies
116 Pine St., 5th FI.
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 635-2320
FAX (717) 635-2317
Cell (717) 307-1881
www.versantstrateqies.net
House Agriculture Mty 10-6-14.docx
House Agriculture and Rural Affairs
House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
10/6/14, 9:00 a. m., 140 Main Capitol
Committee(s):
House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Meeting type:
Informational Meeting
Subject:
Genetically Modified Organisms
Bills discussed:
(N/A)
Keyword(s):
GMOs, genetically modified,
Testimony:
Trov Ott, Ph.D., Professor of Reproductive Phvsioloqv. Pennsvlvania State Universitv
John Tooker, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Entomoloqv
David Mortensen, Ph.D., Professor of Weed and Applied Ecoloqv. Penn State Universitv
Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., Senior Research Science, MIT Computer Science and Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory
Chuck Benbrook, Ph.D., Manaqer, Measure to Measure, Farm and Food Diaqnostics for
Sustainability and Health, Washington State University
Kevin Folta. Ph.D., Chairman, Horticulture Sciences Department, Universitv of Florida
L. Val Giddinqs, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Members Present:
Chairman John Maher (D-Allegheny), Minority Chair Joseph Petrarca (D-Westmoreland), and
Representatives Gordon Denlinger (R-Lancaster), Mindy Fee (R-Lancaster), Marcia Hahn (R-
Northampton), Stephen Bloom (R-Cumberland) Jake Wheatley (D-Allegheny), David Millard
(R-Columbia), Pamela DeLissio (D-Philadelphia), Dan Moul (R-Adams), Rick Mirabito (D-
Lycoming), Mark Painter (D-Montgomery), Joe Emrick (R-Northampton), Sid Kavulich (D-
Lackawanna), David Hickernell (R-Lancaster), and Mark Keller (R-Perry).
The committee met to learn about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food.
Chairman John Maher (D-Allegheny) welcomed the "esteemed panel of those with high profiles" in their
fields, adding that testimony should be from an informational point to create a "threshold of scientific
understanding" for the legislators before they consider further legislation on the subject.
Troy Ott , Ph.D., Professor of Reproductive Physiology, Pennsylvania State University, began by
addressing the cause of creating GMOs, which he explained is the need to feed the rapidly growing
population of the world. He continued that, "the planet will add the equivalent of two more Chinas in
population between now and the end of the century." Because 70 percent of available fresh water and the
majority of good agricultural land is already in use, Ott said, food producers will need to create more food
out of less resources in order to keep up with the demand.
"The letters of life are shared among all life forms," Ott said, stating that scientists' understanding of
genetics has greatly increased in the past thirty years. He added that in the 70s, methods were developed
to copy, cut, and paste DNA in cells, which can be used to develop tools for medicine such as creating
animal models of human diseases and producing transplantable organs or tissues. He said that natural
genetic engineering has also lead to humans developing placentas for babies, and that eight percent of
the human genome actually comes from viruses.
Ott explained many other instances of GMOs that could benefit people - carp that grow faster; goats that
produce vaccines or additional proteins in their milk; pigs that produce less phosphorous pollution; and
chickens that resist bird flu transmission. Some GMO developers try to move to Brazil, he said, "to have a
more clear regulatory pathway."
House Agriculture Mtg 10-6-1 4. docx
Ott continued that while GMOs can go from concept "to live birth in less than a year," they can also be
"subject to one of the longest regulatory assessments in Food and Drug Administration history," as is a
genetically modified salmon that grows two to four times faster than normal, which has been waiting for
approval for almost twenty years.
Ott said that "every major scientific organization" has found that there is "nothing inherently dangerous" in
the process or products of genetic engineering. He added that much of the opposition to genetic
engineering comes from "bad science" and sensationalized headlines, which rely on correlation instead of
causation or "cherry picked results."
Each GMO must be evaluated individually for its benefits or risks, Ott said, adding that "GMOs are not the
only solution to feeding a growing population sustainably, but they are an essential tool to that end."
Chairman Maher said that a food shortage was predicted decades ago in regards to the growing
population, which is still 15 percent higher what was predicted and still needs to be fed.
Minority Chairman Joseph Petrarca (D-Westmoreland) asked the doctor's opinion on labeling. Ott
indicated that decision is left to legislators, but said that an organism being genetically modified has no
relation to its safety and thus is not necessary. The minority chairman asked if consumers have a right to
know. Ott said that the only effective label is the United States Department of Agriculture Organic label,
as merely a label merely showing the presence GMOs in general does not provide any real, useful
information.
Rep. Jake Wheatley (D-Allegheny) addressed the concern of producing more with less in the future, and
asked if there are any other alternatives. Ott said that there is an "array of important technologies" and
that GMOS are just "one important tool in the tool box."
Rep. Dan Moul (R-Adams) asked what percentage of food is genetically modified. Ott said that greater
than 90% of corn production is, while none of the genetically modified animals have been approved to be
on the market. Rep. Moul then asked if it would be easier to label those that are not genetically modified,
but Ott said he is not sure, adding that the GMO label does not signify anything useful.
John Tooker , Ph.D., Associate Professor of Entomology and Extension Specialist, Pennsylvania State
University, began by stating how crucial integrated pest management is in Pennsylvania, cautioning that it
must be used appropriately or it could lead to resistance or other problems. He said that a popular
strategy to combat insects is altering the genetic makeup of plants to create the bacillus thuringiensis
(BT) bacterium, which is engineered to only target specific larvae. It is activated in pests' alkaline
stomach, he explained, and thus will not be activated in humans' acidic stomachs.
Tooker said that "70 percent of grain corn in the United States" is grown using this BT gene, adding that
because of it "no longer do we need to spray insecticides across the landscape." This provides economic
benefit to not only BT users who see less of their crop eaten, but also non-BT users, he said, as pest
populations lower in even non-BT corn, which also becomes cheaper to grow when BT corn seeds are
preferred.
Two specific pests, Tooker added, the European corn borer and the western corn rootworm, are one of
the targets of the BT gene, which can target either or both of the "billion dollar pests" that can cost
growers in the Northeast large amounts of money. While BT can kill virtually all of the former, some of the
latter are expected to survive, he said, which has created a "suspected field resistance" in 12 states and
Mifflin, Cumberland, and Centre counties in Pennsylvania. BT technology fosters a silver bullet mentality,
Tooker said, but stressed that full IPM is the best solution, which includes both BT crops and crop
rotation.
House Agriculture Mtg 10-6-1 4. clocx
Tooker also explained that because BT seeds are a high investment, farmers and sellers may also apply
insecticides to the seeds, such as neonicotinoids, to better guarantee their growth, which is suspected as
a factor in the collapse of honey bee populations. These insecticides, he explained, can also pollute water
sources and in some cases make slug populations. These are not problems caused by BT crops, he said,
but they come along with BT mindset. Genetically modified corn has clear benefits for farmers, he said,
but it must be used judicially and appropriately.
Rep. Pamela DeLissio (D-Philadelphia) asked if the insecticide was a form of genetic modification, but
Tooker responded that it was not, though they do go hand-in-hand and the insecticide becomes systemic
in the plant.
Rep. Stephen Bloom (R-Cumberland) said that he studied European corn borer damage at during his
time at Pennsylvania State University, and asked if there are any risks in BT corn or conventional
pesticides. Tooker said that to his knowledge there are no negative effects for the corn, but added that
there are toxicity concerns with most pesticides.
Chairman Maher asked about the corn kernels with insecticide residue. Both BT and non treated kernels
would not have any pesticide covering, Tooker explained, though if there were neonicotinoids sprayed on
them that would be found. For pesticides that must be sprayed on, he continued, corn would remain
largely unaffected because of husk, but tomatoes and other non-protected plants would likely have a
residue. Neonicotinoids are different beast, he explained, and are systemic in the plant itself.
Rep. Wheatley asked if there are any studies that attempt to find the combined impact of all genetically
modified grains, animals, and food on a population, if there are any. Tooker said he is not aware of any
studies that have explored interaction between all GMOs and humans, but that more specific studies
have shown the effects with specific GMOs. He added that some individuals could be allergic to
something in a modified organism, but that he has not seen a holistic study.
Rep. Rick Mirabito (D-Lycoming) asked Tooker to expand on the honeybee situation. Honeybees are
experiencing a colony collapse disorder, he said, which he said comes from a litany of factors, and that it
is unclear how big of a contributor neonicontinoids are.
David Mortensen , Ph.D., Professor of Weed and Applied Ecology, Penn State University, explained
another popular crop protection method called packaging involves genetically engineering a crop to be
resistant to herbicides such as Roundup in order to use that herbicide to control weeds without killing the
crops. This two-fold process has caused an increase in both GMO use and herbicide use, as well as a
"very serious pest resistance problem" of which Pennsylvania has been on the receiving end.
Mortensen explained that there are now "28 species infecting 60 million of acres crop land in United
States" that are some level of herbicide resistant, increased "from none in 1995." Farmers are searching
for the next generation of crops to be resistant to a new herbicide, Mortensen said, and there are already
40 pending patent applications on herbicides attempting to fill that role. He calls this an "herbicide
treadmill," adding that these practices are being too heavily relied upon and are not truly going to be
sustainable.
Research indicates, Mortensen said, that the portion of the landscape which is treated and the frequency
of which treatment is applied correlate with how much of the treatment appears in drinking water due to
runoff. He added that while herbicides are not directly toxic to bees, they are designed to be toxic to
plants, which results in fewer plants for the bees to use and thrive upon.
Farming practices must be compatible with the diversity and the environment of Pennsylvania, Mortensen
said.
Houso Agriculture Mtg 10-6-1 4. docx
Chairman Maher attempted to confirm that Mortensen is advocating for integrated weed management,
involving balance and rotation as no single approach is the fully correct one. Mortensen said that he is
"definitely advocating an integrated approach."
The chairman asked if glyphosate is dangerous not because of the residue it may leave but because of
the resistance it inspire, which will call for the use of older herbicides that may cause more pollution
damage. Mortensen said it was, adding that the silver bullet approach does not work, and even the silver
bullet plus one, or packaging, approach "appears unwise," and stressed how much he felt this was not the
proper course of action.
Rep. David Millard (R-Columbia) asked if there have been any generational studies, saying how important
he feels they are. It is very hard to get funding to do, but critically important, Mortensen agreed.
Snapshots in time often over simplify the image and miss many factors, he said, adding that a holistic
view in time needs to be taken and considered.
Stephanie Seneff , Ph.D., Senior Research Science, MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory, said she first noticed a rise in autism ten years ago and believed it had non-genetic causes.
She showed charts indicating the growing increase in children with autism, saying it is a "terrifying trend
and it needs to be stopped." Many factors can explain part of the increase, she said, but there is still a
large amount left unexplained. Once she learned about Roundup and glyphosates though, she found an
extremely high correlation coefficient between the herbicide and autism, she said.
Seneff continued that "Roundup crops produce Roundup ingredients," adding that the BT gene,
neonicotinoid, and the herbicide 2,4-d produce very toxic food. She explained that while humans do not
have the shikimate pathway that glyphosate travels through, there are necessary bacteria in the human
stomach that do. Damaging these bacteria, she said, can have many negative effects on human health,
from sleeping problems to Crohn's disease, which has seen a 49 percent increase in the past decade.
Seneff said that in a study on rats consuming glyphosate, many of them grew massive tumors, affecting
the females more, which she said could partially account for the recent increase in breast cancer after
accounting for other factors. She added that there are more interviews, papers, and publications as
evidence of the negative health effects on her website.
A GMO label, she said, would indicate that there is likely glyphosate on the food, and she would avoid it
for the safety of her family. Future generations will look back on this time and the chemicals in the food
with "alarm and disbelief," she said.
Chairman Maher said that most of Seneffs testimony focused on glyphosates, and asked if she felt GMO
food is dangerous. Seneff said she does not know but that there should be more studies on the health of
effects of GMOs. Chairman Maher asked if the greater concern is with herbicides. Seneff said it is, adding
that 2,4-d and other herbicides are poisons, and that she expects to see increases in more diseases with
the increased use of 2,4-d. The chairman said he appreciates her variety of charts
Chairman Maher asked about if these correlations could be confirmed as causations. Seneff said that she
looked at the many readings, journals, and data on both sides of the correlation, then "connected the
dots." The correlation is so strong, she said, that it could not happen by accident. She has published five
papers that talk about glyphosate that go onto more detail, she said.
Rep. Mirabito asked her to talk about autism and Alzheimer's disease in relation to the herbicides. Seneff
said that there are many similar symptoms between the two diseases and that she has seen very similar
increases in Alzheimer's as well. She explained that glyphosate is known to cause manganese deficiency
in cows, and that manganese deficiency also leaves the mitochondria more susceptible to damage, which
is a key factor in both autism and Alzheimer's. She continued that there is a similar substance in the MMR
vaccine that contains glutamate, which is linked to autism as well.
House Agriculture Mtg 1 0-6-1 4.t!ocx
Rep. Bloom asked what remedy she would impose. Seneff responded that she would introduce a bill that
bans glyphosate, which been done in two countries already.
Chuck Benbrook , Ph.D., Manager, Measure to Measure, Farm and Food Diagnostics for Sustainability
and Health, Washington State University said that he has extensive pesticide expertise and that he has
testified before on the subject. Many people that are concerned about agriculture have those concerns
based on genetic engineering, he said.
Benbrook added that while the technology is very good at cutting and copying DNA, it lacks the precision
in reinserting it into cells. Humans and other organisms do not like intrusions like viruses, he said, and
cells have multiple defenses against them. The current method of adding a DNA sequence involves
coating the metal in the sequence and shooting it into a petri dish, he said. He continued that this method,
while successful, is not very precise and has no control over where the gene is expressed, only that it is
expressed at all.
A Safety and Genetically Engineered Foods report, Benbrook said, indicated that M no adverse health
effects have been documented" in humans due to GMOs. He explained that this does not mean that there
is no harm being done, only that it has not been explicitly documented. There is not a global consensus,
he continued, saying that more countries are banning certain GMOs while the United States is embracing
them. Much of Europe and China, for example, are refusing some genetically modified apples and alfalfa
hay, which will have negative effects on the United States' status as an exporter, he said.
Benbrook said that due to glyphosate's seemingly low toxicity level, it has increased to the most sprayed
pesticide in history, calling it an "incredibly ubiquitous chemical." He speculated that it might require a
smaller threshold, as though it appears safe in some ways it seems to have more long-term effects. He
added that he hopes it is as safe as its users say it is.
Chairman Maher attempted to clarify that the issue is not yet about the actual known effects of GMOs, but
the insecticides that are welcome because of them. Benbrook said that it was, and also expressed
concern about sweet corn expressing three BT proteins, which "no human being has been exposed to" at
all. The lax view of the proteins has been based on the notions that they break down very quickly in the
stomach, he said, but added that there is now evidence that BT proteins may get directly into the blood
stream through the mouth.
Chairman Maher referred back to the statement that there are no documented health effects on humans
and asked if the National Academy of Science had conducted any more recent studies that contradict
that. Benbrook said that another report came out in 2010, though it focused solely on environmental
impact, so the previously referred to study is the last assessment. At the time, he added, there was not
any corn that expressed more than one BT protein, while now there are types that have six BT proteins.
There is even less research into the cumulative effects of stacking BT proteins, he said, adding that the
cost of seeds goes up incrementally with each additional trait. This is something that scientists "simply
haven't dealt with," he said.
Kevin Folta , Ph.D., Chairman, Horticulture Sciences Department, University of Florida, explained his
experience in genetics and produce, saying his lab has sequenced the strawberry genome and is
currently researching non chemical means to improve shelf life. He continued that debates based on
hysteria often "stops the flow of good communication in science."
Folta continued that these genetically engineering techniques pose "less risk than traditional breeding." In
traditional breeding, he explained, thousands of genes can be different without knowing exactly which
have changed. Compared to genetic engineering that can purposefully change a single gene, he said, it
seems like the former is the more risky option.
House Agriculture Mtg 1 0-6-1 4.docx
"This is a social debate and it's fueled by misinformation," Folta said, adding that once people understand
how GMOs work they will seem "not so scary." He said that in studies on animals, no health risks were
seen after 15 years of a diet composed entirely of GMOs.
"A right to know only works if there is a willingness to learn," he said, saying that there are already many
options for consumers to find non-GMO if they so choose, making the GMO label unnecessary. GMOs
can help with bio-fortification, higher stress tolerance, better consumer products, and a cleaner
environment, he said. If GMOs are rejected, the real losers will be developing nations struggling to feed
their citizens, he said, citing President Jimmy Carter.
Chairman Maher asked if, one way or another, everything humans eat is a GMO. Folta said it is, as
"everything we consume is the result of human intervention." The chairman asked if every banana is
genetically identical to every other banana. Folta said that was accurate, as they have all propagated
from a single crop which could cause lower disease resistance.
Chairman Maher said the charts were interesting, and asked if he could be provided a copy. Folta said it
could be easily accessed online by searching for "franken food paradox." He continued that the previously
cited figures of BT proteins in humans' bloodstreams came from a study that used a kit meant for plants
that provided results much lower than the accepted detection range of the kit. He said the kit is able to
find BT proteins if they are present, but that this test had an unreliable standard.
Chairman Maher asked if strawberries are not GMOs. Folta said that they are not, though through a
rigorous effort a fungus resistant strawberry has been developed, though it has not been approved and
thus cannot be used.
L. Val Giddinqs , Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, explained his
vast experience in bio technology including work as a geneticist, risk assessments for developing GMOs,
food options for developing countries, and currently a think tank that focuses on "fostering policies that
favor innovation." He continued that as a lifelong lover of wilderness, one of his main focuses in the field
of agriculture, being the single greatest threat to nature, is to reduce its effects on native lands.
As a parent whose son has a potentially life threatening allergy to peanuts, Giddings understands the
need for food labels to help people "avoid those hazards," but maintains that legislation on the subject
would not only fail to improve the situation, but may even have a negative impact as it would imply there
is a threat where there is none.
Giddings said that merely labeling a product with GMOs says nothing about the product or its safety, and
if consumers were legitimately concerned with this they would demand labels that show specific protein or
construct of the GMO.
There is already a label for organic food and even apps that can be downloaded to show consumers
which foods have GMOs in them, he said, making a mandated GMO label unnecessary for safety
concerns. Giddings explained, via a list of quotations from many proponents of GMO labeling, that many
of the biggest supporters do so in order to strengthen the market share of organic farmers as opposed to
the health reasons discussed at the meeting.
Chairman Maher asked if FDA had concluded that GMOs are safe, if it had ever concluded the same
about organic food, and what the process for labeling something as safe is. Giddings said that it had not
deemed either class of food safe, because it does not do that as an organization, adding that the organic
label is a marketing ploy. FDA makes sure that the food producers bare legal responsibility for safety and
follows and applies the policies of the National Academy of Sciences in regards to safety, Giddings said.
Though the approval process is de jure voluntary, they are de facto mandatory, he continued, and every
food product on the market has gone through this consultation process.
House Agriculture Mtg 10-6-14.c1ocx
Chairman Maher asked if FDA had ever determined food products to be unacceptable. Giddings said that
it had not, though a company developing genetically modified soy beans for poultry rejected its own
product when it found that the soy beans contained a nut allergen due to the added protein from the
Brazil nut that was used. Brazil requested the soy beans anyway to fight malnutrition, Giddings continued,
though it was not sold to them. While products are rejected before the consultation process with FDA, he
said, none were rejected during the process.
Rep. Mirabito added that he feels a GMO label does not feed fears of GMOs, but allows for choice "until
science catches up and is able to educate everyone." The representative, mentioning that House Bill
1770 would require products containing GMOs be labeled, asked what Giddings would suggest as proper
labeling, or if he opposes all of it. Giddings said that a good standard would look very much like what FDA
requires today. While it requires useful and necessary information, some consumers may want to know
more, Giddings said, which can be fulfilled through market based and voluntary labels, such as the
organic label. To mandate a label that will mislead consumers, he said, would be "bad policy."
"Everything living on the planet has been genetically modified in one way or another," Giddings added,
even the "single most common gene in a human genome is a gene from viral origin."
From:
Cathleen Enright <cenrighL@bio.org>
Sent time:
10/18/2014 09:24:31 AM
To:
Folta, Kevin M.
Subject:
Re: suggestions
Your email made my day! Thank you. We so appreciate your participation in these opportunities.
Very interesting about Benbrook...
Please send all receipts to us whenever you get around to it. No rush.
Best wishes,
Cathy
Cathleen Enright, PhD
Executive Vice President
Food & Agriculture
The Biotechnology Industry Organization
1201 Maryland Ave, SW Ste 900
Washington DC 20024
202 962 6644
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 13, 2014, at 3:19 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." <kfolta@u I1.edu> wrote:
Cathy,
The PA meeting was good, 'tn preparing a note for Biofortified, hopefully will have that done
late tonight if email dies down.
Val Giddings was fantastic and I think my points were well received. The guys from Penn
State were a mixed bag. Troy Ott was great. He is an animal physiologist that did a beautiful
job laying out biotech and ag, focusing mostly on missed opportunities with animal science.
John Tooker was good, and did a nice job on explaining Bt and its benefits, but wandered into
neonics, which is a non-sequitur in this discussion. It seemed to confuse more than assist, and
turned the focus to bees, which makes zero sense, as transgenic crops help there
tremendously . Dave Mortensen was his usual self, essentially playing th^pesticide
treadmill" trope, never mentioning that a pesticide treadmill is natural, expected, not just
GMO, and keeps us off of the pesticide superhighway.
Seneff was out of her mind. Even Jeff Smith pales in comparison. Her entire presentation
was "I think that,.. ", "It probably is... " and endless confusion of correlations with causality.
She was a complete bastardization of hypothesis-driven science. She received applause
afterwards, and was mobbed outside the Capitol by adoring legions, one hugging her and
saying, "Thank you for confirming everything I believe."
Benbrook seems defeated. I think he's smart enough to know that the scam is crumbling and
he has to decide if he's going to continue down the road to crazy land or settle back into
reality, focusing on actual limitations of transgenic crop technology, His presentation was
outdated, boring and easily refuted. He stated that the crops were safe, that glyphosate was
safe, and pretty much threw Seneff under the bus.
I had fun, the usual push to teach the basics and focus on missed opportunities. I got solid
praise from Rep Maher right after and in communication since, which I think was genuine.
I do hope I can pass some receipts forward if that's still okay. I haveft had a minute to get
such things together since, but will do asap.
I'm glad to help on any of these efforts— this was right in my wheelhouse.
Thanks.
Kevin
From: Cathleen Enright r mailto i cenright^bio.org l
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 4:20 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: Re: suggestions
Kevin, Enjoyed your blog yesterday on Dr Huber. What a saga for you. Wanted to ask
you how the PA hearing went. Best regards, Cathy
Cathleen Enright, PhD
Executive Vice President
Food & Agriculture
The Biotechnology Industry Organization
1201 Maryland Ave, SW Ste 900
Washington DC 20024
202 962 6644
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 25, 2014, at 10:42 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." < kfolta(a;ufl.edu > wrote:
Cathy,
Good stuff today. I didn't want to chime in- but had to on that one issue.
Can you give me some guidance? I was asked by Pennsylvania
Representative John Maher to participate in a hearing of the Agriculture
Committee on October 6. They have pressure to push a labeling bill forward
and he wants it killed with science.
He invited me up to give a presentation and answer questions. They're also
bringing in Mortensen from Penn State and Seneff. Sounds like fun. I've dealt
with both before and this will be simple.
The problem is that they have no support for my travel. I don't really have it
here in my program or department that I could use for such things. It would
not be appropriate.
Can you point me to potential industry sources, maybe even BIO? I'd need a
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
DRAKE, LISA M [AG/ 1000] <lisa.m.drakc@monsanto.com>
10/23/2014 10:16:34 AM
Val Giddings <lvg($outlook com>; Folta, Kev in M
Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Kevin and Val:
I don't know if you have been following the Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns, but they are getting
increasingly nasty and strident, attacking the safety of biotech seeds. Check out YouTube yes on 105
Colorado and yes on 92 Oregon. Of particular shamelessness are the ads featuring Ray Seidler and the one
with mothers keeping their babies safe. The ads are hitting home in Oregon in particular, scaring people,
who currently have ballots, into voting yes, not because they support labeling, but because they are afraid.
To me, the safety of GMOs has always been the primary target by these cynical anti-GM activists - and
while they say these campaigns are all about right to know, their constant hammering about safety, and
what is in our foods, and kids getting sick, is driving votes. I have asked the campaign to consider a letter
that will go out in a news release that I hope many scientists will sign onto, to refute these safety
allegations, not to debate labeling. What are your thoughts on such an approach?
Lisa Drake
Monsanto Company
Lead, U.S. State and Local Government Affairs
9816 Glenstone Trail
Highlands Ranch CO 80130
303-514-5533
lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
DRAKE, USA M [AG/1000] <lisa,m r drake@monsanlo.com>
10/27/2014 09:34:16 AM
Folta, Kevin M.; Val Giddings <lvg@outlook.com>
RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Thanks for your blog, Kevin - saw it this weekend and it is making an impact. In the meantime, the
campaign is poised to film another voice on this matter, and also submit a letter from a renowned
pediatrician. The ASA has said it will respond to the scare allegations in a letter to editor and also post on
website. I will make everyone aware of links when they become available. Sometimes it is like moving a
boulder uphill, but I appreciate your advice and efforts. Lisa
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:47 AM
To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]; Val Giddings
Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Well that's why I'm a science goof and not a pollster.
I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like. I saw Seidler's videos and the are
100% scare based. I'd be happy to write the op-ed on making decisions on facts. When someone says,
"Agent Orange" you know they are trying to fool you.
Kevin
From: Val Giddings [lvg@outlook.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:31 AM
To: DRAKE, LISA M AG/1085; Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Lisa -- I've been watching both OR & CO closely, and agree with you on the deterioration in the discourse and the effectiveness
of the antis with their dishonest approach.
1 am a little skeptical that a letter with a lot of scientist signatures will be enough to counter the flood of fearmongering, though.
IMHO what the situation requires is a suite of TV spots featuring attractive young women, preferably mommy farmers, explaining
why biotech derived foods are the safest & greenest in the history of ag and worthy of support. I also think the dishonest fear
mongering needs to be addressed directly and called out.
If something like this cannot be brought to happen, I fear these initiatives will pass, and then we'll be looking for a lot of litigation
that will wind up before SCOTUS.
FYI, I was contacted a while back by Bethany Gravell of the No on 105 coalition, asking for help. She was delighted to have
connected with me and promised her superiors would come back for more concrete conversations, but that hasn't happened.
As you know well, I'd be delighted to help. I know CO fairly well, and I know OR even better. I've spent a lot of time in OR,
always had many friends there, and have personal family history in the state going back over a hundred years...
Best,
Val
From: Folta, Kevin M. rmailto:kfolta@uf l .edul
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:14 AM
To: Val Giddings; DRAKE, LISA M [AG/ 1000]
Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Val is right, we can't fight emotion with lists of scientists. It needs a connection to farming mothers.
There are a bunch of them out there...!
kf
Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Plant Innovation Program
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] [lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:38 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.; Val Giddings
Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Doesn't poll as well as credible third party scientists..., I know hard to believe but I have seen the poll results
myself, and that is why the campaigns work the way they do..,.
From: Folta, Kevin M. [ mailto:kfolta@uf l .edu1
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:14 AM
To: Val Giddings; DRAKE, LISA M [AG/ 1000]
Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Val is right, we can't fight emotion with lists of scientists. It needs a connection to farming mothers.
There are a bunch of them out there...!
kf
Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Plant Innovation Program
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Val Giddings <lvg@outlook.com>
10/23/2014 12:01:07 PM
Folta, Kevin M.; DRAKE, LISA M AG/ 1 085 <1isa.ni.drake@monsaiUo,com>
RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
there's a lot of completely counter intuitive black art in polling, it's enough to drive a scientist
around the twist.
Lisa — I have not yet heard back from Prakash. I suspect he may be teaching this AM or
something. If I have not heard back by midafitemoon I will call him.
V
From: kfolta@ufl.edu
To: lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com; lvg@outlook.com
Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:47:00 +0000
Well that's why I'm a science goof and not a pollster.
I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like. I saw Seidler's videos and the are
100% scare based. I'd be happy to write the op-ed on making decisions on facts. When someone says,
"Agent Orange" you know they are trying to fool you.
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Plant Innovation Program
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
"Don't tell me what can't be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do it." - Norman Borlaug.
Illumination (blog) http://kfolta.blogspot.com
Twitter @kevinfolta
From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] [lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:38 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.; Val Giddings
Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Doesn't poll as well as credible third party scientists.... I know hard to believe but I have seen the poll results
myself, and that is why the campaigns work the way they do....
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:14 AM
To: Val Giddings; DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]
Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Val is right, we can't fight emotion with lists of scientists. It needs a connection to farming mothers.
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Val Giddings <lvg@oullook.com>
10/23/2014 10:40:51 AM
DRAKE, LISA M AG/1085 <lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com>; Folta, Kevin M.
RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Glad to hear it. Most of what I've seen has been anti propaganda, but I'm not watching local TV.
On social media they're killing us. I don't know how much impact that will have on the general
electorate, though.... it's very hard to gauge. (I'm sure it's impactful in Boulder, which bis already a
lost cause, but less sure of any SM impacts in Colorado Springs or Grand Junction...)
If properly deployed, a letter such as you suggest might be helpful. But do we need to start from
scratch, or could we use Prakash's position statement? Last I heard it had over 2,000 sigs
including 17 or 18 Nobel Laureates. I will check with him and see if I can get a current status
update. I know he was having IT probs with the list recently.
From: lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com
To: lvg@outlook.com; kfolta@ufl.edu
Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:36:28 +0000
Hi Val: The ads you suggest are up and are effective, especially here. But the attacks are quickly increasing.
Call me naive, but electorates in both states are fairly highly educated, and I believe a certain kind of
common-sense letter will resonate, especially if it gets wide distribution, which the campaigns are good at.
Talking to Eric-
Lisa
From: Val Giddings [mailto:lvg@outlook.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:32 AM
To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]; Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Lisa -- I've been watching both OR & CO closely, and agree with you on the deterioration in the
discourse and the effectiveness of the antis with their dishonest approach.
I am a little skeptical that a letter with a lot of scientist signatures will be enough to counter the
flood of fearmongering, though.
IMHO what the situation requires is a suite of TV spots featuring attractive young women,
preferably mommy farmers, explaining why biotech derived foods are the safest & greenest in the
history of ag and worthy of support. I also think the dishonest fear mongering needs to be
addressed directly and called out.
If something like this cannot be brought to happen, I fear these initiatives will pass, and then we'll
be looking for a lot of litigation that will wind up before SCOTUS.
FYI, I was contacted a while back by Bethany Gravell of the No on 105 coalition, asking for help.
She was delighted to have connected with me and promised her superiors would come back for
more concrete conversations, but that hasn't happened.
As you know well, I'd be delighted to help. I know CO fairly well, and I know OR even better,
I've spent a lot of time in OR, always had many friends there, and have personal family history in
the state going back over a hundred years...
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Val Giddings <lvg@outlook.com>
10/23/2014 12:01:07 PM
Folta, Kevin M.; DRAKE, LISA M AG/ 1 085 <1isa.ni.drake@monsaiUo,com>
RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
there's a lot of completely counter intuitive black art in polling, it's enough to drive a scientist
around the twist.
Lisa — I have not yet heard back from Prakash. I suspect he may be teaching this AM or
something. If I have not heard back by midafitemoon I will call him.
V
From: kfolta@ufl.edu
To: lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com; lvg@outlook.com
Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:47:00 +0000
Well that's why I'm a science goof and not a pollster.
I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like. I saw Seidler's videos and the are
100% scare based. I'd be happy to write the op-ed on making decisions on facts. When someone says,
"Agent Orange" you know they are trying to fool you.
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Plant Innovation Program
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
"Don't tell me what can't be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do it." - Norman Borlaug.
Illumination (blog) http://kfolta.blogspot.com
Twitter @kevinfolta
From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] [lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:38 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.; Val Giddings
Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Doesn't poll as well as credible third party scientists.... I know hard to believe but I have seen the poll results
myself, and that is why the campaigns work the way they do....
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:14 AM
To: Val Giddings; DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]
Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Val is right, we can't fight emotion with lists of scientists. It needs a connection to farming mothers.
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:47 AM
To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]; Val Giddings
Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns
Well that's why I'm a science goof and not a pollster.
I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like. I saw Seidler's videos and the are
100% scare based. I'd be happy to write the op-ed on making decisions on facts. When someone says,
"Agent Orange" you know they are trying to fool you.
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Deoartment
From: Folta, Kevin M. rmailto:kfolta(g)ufl.edul
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 10:03 PM
To: Kate Hall; Cathleen Enright
Cc: Don Atkins
Subject: RE: Coloring books?
Kate,
Thanks for the connection. We are making progress in Florida. For being such a goofy state, I think this
will be the last one to ask for labeling and weirdo considerations. We have a good infrastructure to
become a leader in adopting biotech.
I was asked by Susan Stutsman, Duvall County Farm Bureau (Jacksonville, largest Co in the USA) to
provide 900 coloring books. I remembered that you had such things and they need them.
Her phone number is 904-860-2059.
Her address is Duvall County Farm Bureau, 5542 Dunn Avenue, Jacksonville, FL 32218.
This state can be a game changer. We need the students on our side, and let's get materials in their
hands. Our farm bureau is connected to the classroom and they really want your help.
They'd love this stuff ASAP-- 1 can find a way to pay for expedited shipping if necessary. Please call
Susan and talk to her about what she needs and when. Thanks.
Let me know what I can do.
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
From: Kate Hall [khall@bio.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 2:34 PM
To: Cathleen Enright; Folta, Kevin M.
Cc: Don Atkins
Subject: RE: Coloring books?
Hi Kevin - I just need to know how many coloring books you need and where I should
ship them. We should be able to get them to you quickly.
Best regards,
Kate Hall
From: Cathleen Enright
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 2:32 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Cc: Kate Hall; Don Atkins
Subject: Re: Coloring books?
Hi Kevin. We do have coloring books available that we send out upon request. Looping in Kate
and Don who can help. Thanks and hope you are well. Cathy
Cathleen Enright, PhD
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
SCHAEFER, BENJAMIN ADAM [AG/1000] <benjamin.adam.schaefer@monsanto.com>
1 1/24/2014 11:38 20 AM
Folta, Kevin M
Benbrook Notes
Hey Kevin-
Did you send Robb your notes on Benbrook? If not, you can fwd them to me, & I can make sure he gets
them. We only are working 2 days this week, so everyone is busy and I want to make sure he has your
notes to take home before the Thanksgiving holiday!
Ben Schaefer
Scientific Communications Mgr
Monsanto Company
O: 314-694-3319
C: 314-813-7071
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:39 PM
To: SCHAEFER, BENJAMIN ADAM [AG/1000]
Subject: RE: Fraley visit to florida
He asked me for info about debating Benbrook. I know how Benbrook rolls, just sat with him recently.
Can I just give it to you? He's expecting it.
kf
From: SCHAEFER, BENJAMIN ADAM [AG/1000] f mailto:beniamin.adam. schaefer@monsanto.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 4:38 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: RE: Fraley visit to florida
Hmmm... that is a tough one.
When I need him, I usually go through his admin. I guess it depends on what you want to get to him.
Ben Schaefer
Scientific Communications Mgr
Monsanto Company
O: 314-694-3319
C: 314-813-7071
From: Folta, Kevin M. \ mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:31 PM
To: SCHAEFER, BENJAMIN ADAM [AG/1000]
Subject: RE: Fraley visit to florida
Ben,
Thanks for your help on this. I have some follow-up stuff for Robb, mostly toward his debate with
Benbrook, etc.
What is the best way to get it to him? Through his email directly? I can do that, but if there is a better
pipeline let me know.
i^roni: Mischa Popoff <answers@polyphase.us>
Sent time: 1 1/28/2014 01:13:40 PM
T° : nina.fedoroff@kaust.edu.sa; nvfl@psu.edu; kcassmanl@unl.edu; mmatz@ofwlaw.com; ninafedoroff <nvfl@psu.edu>
JVroom@croplifeamerica.org; karen@nutralix.com; karl@biofortified.org; kbcfarm@gmail.com; kd.jany@t-online.de; kerstin.moench@bdp-
online.de; kinne@dc.ncga.com; klaus.ammann@ips.unibe.ch; klg37@cam.ac.uk; kmurphy@foodchaincommunications.com; Kuntz@ujf-grenoble.ff;
L.gry@sempro.net; lambert@ncga.com; lenucci@confagricoltura.it; lpeters@ncfc.org; lswasson@dow.com; luciadesouza@cutting-edge-
solutions.com; Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: RE: Americans need to rethink their concern on GMO vs. organic crops
Dear Nina, Ken and Marshall:
You are quite right that we need to rethink our views around GMOs and organic food.
Speaking as a former organic grain farmer and USDA-contract organic inspector, I can attest that
everything you say in your article about the severe shortcomings of organic farming versus GMO farming is
bang on. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/storv/opinion/columnists/2014/ll/22/rethink-views-gmo-
crops/19421459/
However, your article falls short in failing to identify the organic movement as the source of all anti-GMO
sentiment across America, and throughout the world. As Dr. Patrick Moore and I point out in our article on
The Daily Caller, "You can't separate the organic movement from the anti-GMO movement. They are one
and the same, existing in perfect anti-technological symbiosis. What's bad for GMOs is good for organics
and vice versa." http://dailvcaller.com/2014/Q4/01/organic-activists-need-gmos-now-more-than-ever/
It's not enough to point out that organic food is not more healthful and environmentally-sound as
advertised. You have to push back against organic activists who have since the early 1990s advanced their
cause by attacking GMOs. As the old saying goes, "Follow the money." The organic industry is worth more
than Major League baseball here in America, and it's all based on being anti-GMO.
Please take a more aggressive approach in exposing the organic industry's tax-subsidized opposition to
genetic engineering. With McDonald Restaurant's recent decision to reject the latest version of a GMO
potato, and with GMO wheat, flax and Golden Rice sitting idly on the back burner for over a decade now,
the time is long overdue to take organic activists to task.
All the best!
Mischa Popoff, B.A. (Hons.) U. of S.
Former USDA contract organic inspector
Author of Is it Organic? The inside story of the organic industry
Some people won't like this book, but you will
Policy Advisor for The Heartland Institute
Research Associate for The Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Greenville TX USA
903 - 456-1368
For consulting and expert testimony, visit polyphase. us
For public speaking engagements, please contact the National Speakers Bureau
* ****
Sent from my phone-
> On Nov 25, 2014, at 9:26 AM, "claire0cfsaf.org" wrote:
>
> Good morning, Kevin.
>
> I hope you're doing well. Now that the state ballot initiatives
> are behind us (or almost behind us) and attention is increasingly
> turning to the Congress, my colleagues (copied above) and I would
> like to talk with you briefly next week. We were wondering if you
> would have a some time (not long - maybe 15 minutes) to chat with
lease let me know.
>
> Thanks for considering and have a great Thanksgiving.
>
> claire
>
> —
> Claire Parker
> Spokeswoman
> Coalition for Safe Affordable Food claire@cfsaf.org
From:
claire@cfsaf.org
Sent time:
11/25/2014 01:58:33 PM
To:
Folta, Kevin M.
Cc:
bkennedy@gmaonline.org; rcullen@fp 1 strategies.com; ddiaz@fp 1 strategies.com
Subject:
Re: Phone Call?
Great. Thanks very much for getting back to me so quickly.
Does 4 pm on Wednesday, December 3, work you? Alternatively sometime
Tuesday morning, Dec. 2?
claire
Claire Parker
Spokeswoman
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
claire@cfsaf . org
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Folta, Kevin M. wrote:
> Sure Claire. Next week is generally good. Can you propose two times
> that work for you?
>
> Kevin
>
> Sent from my phone.
>
> > On Nov 25, 2014, at 9:26 AM, "claire@cfsaf.org" wrote:
> >
> > Good morning, Kevin.
> >
> > i hope you're doing well. Now that the state ballot initiatives are
> > behind us (or almost behind us) and attention is increasingly turning to
> > the Congress, my colleagues (copied above) and I would like to talk with
> > you briefly next week. We were wondering if you would have a some time
> > (not long - maybe 15 minutes) to chat with us? Please let me know.
> >
> > Thanks for considering and have a great Thanksgiving.
> >
> > claire
> >
> > —
> > Claire Parker
> > Spokeswoman
> > Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
> > claire@cfsaf.org
From: Richard Cullen <RCullen@fplstrategies,com>
Sent time: 12/02/2014 05:15:19 PM
T° : claire@cfsaf.org; Folta, Kevin M.
Cc: bkennedy@gmaonline.org; Danny Diaz <DDiaz@fplstrategies.com>; Joseph Carruth <jcarruth@fpl strategies. eom>
Subject: Re; phone Call?
Adding Joe Carruth who will send around a calendar item. Thx
Richard Cullen
FPl Strategies LLC
0: 202-677-7086
C: 804-514-5832
rcullen@fplstrategies . com
On 12/2/14, 11:45 AM, "claire0cfsaf.org" wrote:
>Kevin —
>
>Here is the dial in number 202-780-1281 {no pin is necessary) .
>
>Talk tomorrow!
>
>cbp
>
> —
>Claire Parker
>Spokeswoman
>Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
>claire0cf saf . org
>
>On Tue, Dec 2, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Folta, Kevin M. wrote:
>> That's it! Looking forward to it.
»
» kf
»
>> Original Message
>> From: claireOcfsaf . org [mailto : claireOcf saf . org]
» Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 11:33 AM
» To: Folta, Kevin M.
>> Cc : bkennedy0gmaonline.org; rcullen0fplstrategies.com;
>> ddiaz0 f pi strategies . com
>> Sub j ect : Re : Phone Call?
>>
» Sorry to be confused — what day/time are we on your schedule for? 4
>> tomorrow?
>>
>> Thanks .
>> cbp
»
» —
>> Claire Parker
>> Spokeswoman
» Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
>> claire0cfsaf,org
»
» On Tue, Dec 2, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Folta, Kevin M. wrote:
» > Hi Claire,
prcim: Joseph Carruth <icarrulh@rplstrateg.ies.com>
Sent time: -| 2/02/201^1 05:20:30 PM
Joseph Carruth <icarruth@fplstrategies com>; claire^cfsaf org; Folia, Kevin M.; bkennedy@gmaonline.orB; Danny Diaz; Richard
To:
Cullen
Subject: CFSAF/Kevin Folta Call
Appointment
Required attendees:
Location: 202-780-1281
Start time: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 4:00:00 PM
End time: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 4:30:00 PM
202 - 780-1281
From:
Folta, Kevin M.
Sent time: (2/04/2014 08:14:20 AM
To: claire@efsof.org; bkennedy@gmaonline.org; Joseph Comiih <jcomith@fp I strategies com > ; Folio, Kevin M.
Subject: Follow UP: CFSAF/Kevin Folta Call
Hello Everyone,
Thank you for your time yesterday. The 'debate' last night was quite energizing and I'm excited to move
forward.
Let’s Ink our next steps soon. My next four months are filling fast, and I want these efforts to get
appropriate attention.
Also, If you can please direct me to good resources on the federal plan, I'd be glad to get up to speed on
them.
Thank you again for considering me for this role, and I look forward to working with you. Lets make a
good change.
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Plant Innovation Program
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
'Don't tell me what can't be done . Tell me what needs to be done , and let me do It . 9 - Norman Borlaug.
Illumination (blog) http://kfblta.blogspot.com
Twitter ©kevlnfolta
From: Joseph Carruth [jcarruth@fplstrategles.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 5:20 PM
Required: Joseph Carruth; daire@cfsaf.org; Folta, Kevin M.; bkennedy@gmaonline.org; Danny Diaz;
Richard Cullen
Subject: CFSAF/Kevin Folta Call
When: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 4:00 PM-4:30 PM.
Where: 202-780-1281
202 - 780-1281
From:
Sent time:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Joseph Carrath <jcarruth@fpl strategies. com>
12/18/2014 02:43:00 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
claire@cfsaf.org; bkennedy@gmaonline.org; Richard Cullen <RCullen@fplstrategies.com>
RE: Follow UP: CFSAF/Kevin Folta Call
Kevin,
We’d like to arrange the follow up call soon after the holidays if that works for you. How’s your availability
the week of January 5 th ? If that week works for you, would you mind shooting us a few times and well
get something on the books.
Thanks,
Joe
From: Joseph Carruth
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 2:02 PM
To: 'Folta, Kevin M.'
Cc: claire@cfsaf.org; bkennedy@gmaonline.org; Richard Cullen
Subject: RE: Follow UP: CFSAF/Kevin Folta Call
Kevin,
Hope this finds you well.
Sorry for the slow response, but we’re excited to have you on board and appreciate all your help.
Here is a link where you can read more about the bill. Please note, however, that the bill may change
slightly when it is reintroduced next Congress. Any changes would be minor and not change the overall
thrust of the legislation.
https://www.c 0 nqress.g 0 v/bill/l 1 3th-conqress/house-bill/4432
We have a hearing before the U.S. House Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee on Wednesday, but
we will be in contact soon thereafter to talk over next steps.
Thanks again,
Joe
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Rory Fry <rfry@bio.org>
01/12/2015 12:38:09 PM
Folta, Kevin M.
RE: CBI PA Hearing Receipts
Thank you for your quick response. I just emailed accounting to double check so I will let you
know what they say. Thank you again!
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 12:24 PM
To: Rory Fry
Subject: RE: CBI PA Hearing Receipts
Hi Rory,
I can do this, i'm traveling at the moment, so it will be later today. BIO should have one on
file for me, it may have been through Ketchum. If not, I'll do this one.
kf
Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Plant Innovation Program
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
"Don't tell me what can’t be done , Tell me what needs to be done , and let me do it, n - Norman Borlaug .
Illumination (blog) httn : / / kfolta.blo gs potcom
Twitter @kevinfolta
From: Rory Fry < rfrv(dj bio.org >
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 12:21 PM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: CBI PA Hearing Receipts
Good afternoon, Mr. Folta;
My name is Rory Fry and I am the new coordinator at CBI. I am in the midst of processing your
receipts from the Pennslyvania hearing but received word from our accounting department that you
also need to fill out a W-9 form. I have attached a .pdf version to this email. Please fill this out as
soon as possible and I will submit it along with the rest of your reimbursements. Please do not
hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Thank you!
Rory
Rory Fry
Biotechnology Industry Organization
1201 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20024
Prom:
Joseph Camiih <jcamiih@fpUiraiegies.com>
Sent time: 01/13/2015 02:29:25 PM
Folia, Kevin M.
Ce: Richard Cullen <RCul len@fplstrategies.com>; Kennedy, Brian <BKcnnedy@gmaonline.org>; Claire Buchan Parker <clairebuchan@aol.com>
Subject: CFSAF Spokesperson Call
Hey Kevin,
Apologies for the delay on this, but we'd love to get another call scheduled at your convenience. Do you
have any availability over the next few days or early next week? If you could just shoot us a few times that
work for you we'll get something on the books.
Appreciate your flexibility and look forward to talking soon.
Thanks,
Joe
BREEFINGS
LUNCHES
RECEPTIONS
ABOUT
SUBMIT
BRIEFING: The
Science of
GMO Foods
Thursday, June 25, 2015
8:00am - 9:00am
2325 Rayburn
(map)
Google Calendar ■ ICS
Debunking the Myths
The Science of GMO Foods
Featuring:
Or, Kevin Folta, University of Florida
Dr Folta is chair of the Horticulture Sciences Department at
the Unlvetsity of Florida, With a background in molecular
biology, he is an expert In the functional genomics of small
fruit crops and an outspoken advocate for science-based
policies.
Dr, Anastasia Bodnar, Biology Fortified Inc.
Dr. Bordnaris a Board Member of Biology Fortified, Inc., and
the Co-Executive Editor of the Bio fortified Blog. She has a
PhD in genetics with a minor In sustainable agriculture from
Iowa State University.
with House Science, Space, and Technology Committee
Vice Chair Frank Lucas
June 25, 2015
8:00 to 9:00 a.m.
2325 Rayburn HOB
PEease RSVP to KarE Anderson at
kandersonPsciencesociQtiQs.orq
Tagged Briefing
Home Archives Contact
Categories
► Agriculture
Aquaculture
Citrus
Crops
Cultivars
Economics
Forestry
Livestock
New Technology
Pests
Safety
Weather
► Environment
Biocontrols
Biofuels
Conservation
Green Living
invasive Species
Pollution
► Families and
Consumers
4-H
Disaster Preparedness
Finances
Food Safety
Household Pests
Nutrition
► IFAS
Announcements
CALS
Departments
Entomology and
Nematology
Extension
Honors and Appointments
RECs
Research
► Lawn & Garden
Florida Friendly
Landscaping
Vegetables
► Stand-Alone Photos
► Uncategorized
Archives
Archives
Select Month T
IFAS
Search
UF/IFAS researchers to testify before Congress about
GMOs
June 22,2015
Topic (,s>: Agriculture, Announcements, Crops, Cultivars, Environment. IFAS, New Technology
finma
Kevin Folta
GAINESVILLE. Fla. — Two UF/IFAS graduate students will advise a congressional committee as
lawmakers question them about biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Chris Earbey and Alejandra Abril Guevara, doctoral students in Plant Molecular and Cellular
Biology, will head to Washington D.C. with UF/IFAS horticultural sciences Professor Kevin Folta
to answer questions from the U.S. House Science Committee at a June 25 hearing. Folta said
there is no set agenda for the discussions, but be expects the researchers to field many
questions relating to the GMO regulatory processes, food labeling and product safety.
"It is great that this committee is consulting with scientists that understand the evidence, and
hopefully evidence will help them devise new policy,' Folta said.
Earbey hopes to provide clarification about some of the prevalent myths.
The safety of GMOs has been established and confirmed again and again. However, there is
still substantial distance between the scientific facts and public perception,' he said.
After 18 years, most GMO crop plants are engineered with just two traits, both of which have
been around since the 1990s: the ET gsne to protect the plant against insect pests and a
modified amino acid biosynthesis gene thatconfers resistance to the herbicide called
glyphosate.
'Our knowledge of plant genetics has obviously increased significantly since then.' Earbey said.
"We are decades behind where we could be in crop development, because in the current
climate, it makes little financial sense for anyone to commercialize these innovations. Decades
of publically-funded crop research sits on the shelf.'
Additionally, said Abril Guevara. "We are scientists, but we also are consumers. As scientists, we
want to orient the discussion toward the facts and help the public make decisions based on
evidence and not on fear.
Earbey said they are visiting to discuss the scientific strengths and limitations of the
technologies and suggest new thinking, given the safety track record of GMOs.
This is about discussing the science-based strengths and limitations of this technology,' Folta
said. Tm grateful that our students will have a chance to present the current state of the
science.'
- 30 -
Ey: Brad Euck. 352-294-3303. bradbuck@ufl.edu
Source: Kevin Folta. 352-273-4812. kfolta@ufl.ed u
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] <Ii5a.m.drake@monsanlo.com>
01/21/2015 11:27:11 AM
Folta, Kevin M.
RE: WcbMD process
Thanks, Kevin — Lisa
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:00 AM
To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]
Subject: RE: WebMD process
Lisa, I'm glad do to this and will bounce something off you soon. I'm absoultely slammed
and behind on everything. If it gets to the point where you need this done-done, shoot me
a note. It's on my list, just not first priority. Let me know when it needs to be.
Kevin
Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Plant Innovation Program
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
"Don't tell me what can't be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do ft.” - Norman Borlaug >
Illumination (blog) j
Twitter @kevinfolta
From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] < lisa.m.drake(a) monsanto.com >
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:11 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: RE: WebMD process
Kevin: one more thing for your consideration: as you consider writing something, please consider insert the
word "labeling" somewhere in the content in order to get search algorithms to pick it up. Thanks again!
Lisa
From: Folta, Kevin M. r mailto:kfolta@ufl.edul
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:32 AM
To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]
Subject: Re: WebMD process
Can do! My pleasure.
I'm traveling... So if you don't get a timely response please tap me on the shoulder.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 15, 2015, at 10:25 AM, DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] < lisa.m. drakeWmonsanlo.com>
wrote:
From:
Serif time;
To:
Subject:
DRAKE, LISA M [AG/ 1 000] <lisn.ni drakc$mansanio,com>
01/15/2015 10:25:04 AM
Folra, Kevin M
FW: WcbMD process
Kevin:
Happy New Year to you! I hope you are well, and able to spend some time at home over the holidays. I
have enjoyed monitoring your activity and commentary on Twitter the past several months - 1 don't know
how you have time to do all the things you do, and still do research!
Of course - that won't stop me from asking another favorl This one relates to Web MD. Over the past six
months, we have worked hard through third parties to insert fresh and current material on Web MD's
website relating to biotechnology health and safety, especially since before that, the material popping up
on relation to the topic dredged up highly negative input from Organic Consumers Association and other
anti-GMO critics, A recent article on Web MD has improved the search results somewhat (see link), but we
understand another way to improve the resources on the website is through bloggers to the website. It is a
fairly simple process and I would appreciate your consideration of submitting a blog on the safety and
health of biotech to WebMD, if at all possible? The instructions for how to do such a thing are below, and I
would be grateful for your consideration of this request.
Best wishes -
Lisa Drake
Monsanto Company
Lead, ILS, State and Local Government Affairs
9816 Glenstone Trail
Highlands Ranch CO 80130
303-514-5533
lis a . m .drake @ rnonsa n t o , com
Here is the article discussed above:
Food & Recipes
The Truth About GMOs
By Amy Paturel
WebMD Feature
Reviewed by Jennifer Robinson, MD
If you’ve eaten today, chances are you’ve had a food that's been touched by science as well as
Mother Nature. Up to 80% of processed foods in the U.S. have something that's been genetically
modified (GM), and that number is growing by leaps and bounds. Key crops include corn,
soybeans, and cotton. (Yes, cotton products are in foods.)
Scientists tinker with plants for many reasons. They often take a gene that controls a desired trait
in one plant - less need for water, so it can survive a drought, for example - and insert it into a
different plant. The end result: hardier crops, more colorful berries, even seedless watermelons
and grapes.
“What that means is, like it or not, genetically modified foods are almost impossible to avoid," says
Sheldon Krimsky, PhD, an adjunct professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts
Medical School in Boston.
The Pros
The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Medical
Association all say these crops are at least as safe as, and often safer than, foods modified the
old-fashioned way, such as through crossbreeding.
In the U.S., three groups play a role in bringing GM products to grocery store shelves. The EPA
rates GM plants for environmental safety, the USDA decides whether the plant is safe to grow,
and the FDA decides whether the plant is safe to eat.
“They're the most thoroughly tested food on the market,” says Dan Goldstein, MD, senior science
fellow at Monsanto, an agriculture company responsible for a large share of genetically modified
crops worldwide.
Those in favor of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) count these among their top selling
points:
More food: Genetic engineering helps farmers boost their yield by making crops that
can live through a drought or the cold and resist disease. Backers say GM products will
help us feed the extra 2 billion people that will fill the planet by 2050, "Not using these
tools would push us back 40 to 50 years in food production," says Kent Bradford, PhD,
distinguished professor of plant sciences and director of the Seed Biotechnology Center
at the University of California, Davis,
Less stress on the environment: Supporters say biotechnology is better for the planet
than older farming methods, Crops built to resist pests lower farmers' need for toxic
chemical pesticides, Goldstein says, They also require less soil to be tilled, reduce
runoff, and keep erosion down.
Better products: Scientists can engineer crops to contain vital nutrients. Swiss
researchers created a strain of "golden" rice with high amounts of beta-carotene.
Monsanto produced soybeans with lots of heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids. Other
crops, like papaya and cassava, can be made to withstand disease. "Naturally occurring
molds (if we don't prevent them by creating GM crops) present huge health hazards,"
Bradford says. "Why reject a technology that has the potential to benefit so many people
worldwide?"
The Cons
Environmental activists, public interest groups, even religious organizations hold that GM foods
can cause allergies , make your body resist antibiotics, or even lead to cancer . Independent
scientists without a stake on either side see pitfalls to these high-profit, high-tech products.
Top concerns about GMOs include:
The rise of superweeds: Crops built to withstand herbicides could cross-breed and
transfer their genes to weeds. These "superweeds" would also withstand the herbicides,
On the other hand, GM fans say this is nothing new, "Even nonchemical technologies
create superweeds," Bradford says.
Health problems: The process often mixes or adds proteins that don't exist in the
original plant, GMO foes fear these will create new allergic reactions. They also worry
that foods made to resist disease and viruses will linger in your system after you eat
them, and that could make antibiotics less effective. But no studies confirm this claim.
"Frankenfood" fears: The long-term effects of splicing new genes into common crops
are still unclear, While the industry and health leaders cite hundreds of studies to support
the technology’s safety, not to mention 20 years of animal data, experts like Krimsky
claim studies that show bad effects on animals - like harm to the kidneys , liver, heart , or
other organs — should carry more weight. "The prominent scientists who say the
controversy surrounding GMOs has been resolved are dismissing at least 23 studies
showing ill effects,” he says. “It has to be a balancing act that weighs the benefits of
GMOs against the risks, and that is driven by science, not political pressure or profits.”
The FDA’s only litmus test for safety is based on a policy that says GM foods are close enough to
natural foods that they don't need regulation. “The question is, how can they make that
determination?" Krimsky says.
The Right to Know
Whether they think of them as Frankenfoods or a way to feed the world, both sides agree
consumers have a right to know what’s in their food. Countries that require labels for GM foods
include China, Australia, and the European Union. But the U.S. doesn't make food companies
label products with GM ingredients. So it's no surprise many Americans don't realize they’re eating
them.
The FDA says companies can label foods on their own to say they are or aren't genetically
modified, provided they keep it truthful. But that puts an added burden on farmers to plant,
harvest, and ship GM crops separately from non-GM crops. That creates extra cost, which is
passed along to the consumer.
Food companies like Nature's Path and Gerber baby food choose to use non-GM ingredients. The
fast food chain Chipotle removed GM foods from its menu. Whole Foods Market promises to label
all GM products at its U.S. and Canadian stores by 2018,
The bottom line: If you live (and eat) in the U.S., unless it's otherwise stated -- or it's certified
organic - it's a safe bet that your food is GM. Makers who don't use GM ingredients clearly say so
on labels.
SOURCES:
Dan Goldstein, MD, senior science fellow, Monsanto, St. Louis, MO.
Sheldon Krimsky, PhD, adjunct professor of public health and community medicine, Tufts Medical
School, Boston.
Kent Bradford, PhD, Distinguished professor of plant
sciences; director, Seed Biotechnology Center, University of California, Davis.
CSA Discovery Guides: "Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?"
FDA: "FDA’s Role in Regulating Safety of GE Foods."
Klumper, W. PLOS ONE, November 2014.
de Vendomois, J. International Journal of Biological Sciences , 2009.
Iowa State University: "The Debate on Labeling Genetically Modified Food.”
Brown University: “What is Genetically Modified Food?"
A Review of International Labeling Policies of Genetically Modified Food to Evaluate India's
Proposed Rule. 2007.
University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Statewide Biotechnology
Workgroup.
California Prop 37: "Right to Know."
Reviewed on December 07, 2014
© 2014 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved.
and here is the directions for how to be accepted as a blogger.
Thank you for your interest to become a WfchMD Guest Writer or Health Experts, either in community or in blogs Please
write to WebMD Community Management at ^m n uini(ym^n^ei 7 ignl@v/&bmd.net . Be sure to include your Cuirioulum
Vitae and an explanation as to why you would be a good candidate to work with us here at WebMD,
VVe appreciate your interest and look forward to hearing back from you
Yours in health,
WehMD Customer Care
Email Information;
Email#: 18003-1412141
Date Created: 1 1/24/2014 1 0 08 AM ESI
Subject: process for blog submission
From:
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] <lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com>
01/21/2015 12:11:20 AM
Folta, Kevin M.
RE: WebMD process
Kevin: one more thing for your consideration: as you consider writing something, please consider insert the
word "labeling" somewhere in the content in order to get search algorithms to pick it up. Thanks again!
Lisa
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:32 AM
To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/ 1000]
Subject: Re: WebMD process
Can do! My pleasure.
I'm traveling... So if you don't get a timely response please tap me on the shoulder.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 15, 2015, at 10:25 AM, DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] < lisa.m,drakcfajinoiisanto.coni >
wrote:
Kevin:
Happy New Year to you! I hope you are well, and able to spend sometime at home over the
holidays. I have enjoyed monitoring your activity and commentary on Twitter the past several
months - 1 don't know how you have time to do all the things you do, and still do research!
Of course - that won't stop me from asking another favor! This one relates to Web MD. Over
the past six months, we have worked hard through third parties to insert fresh and current
material on Web MD's website relating to biotechnology health and safety, especially since
before that, the material popping up on relation to the topic dredged up highly negative input
from Organic Consumers Association and other anti-GMO critics. A recent article on Web MD
has improved the search results somewhat (see link), but we understand another way to
improve the resources on the website is through bloggers to the website. It is a fairly simple
process and I would appreciate your consideration of submitting a blog on the safety and
health of biotech to WebMD, if at all possible? The instructions for how to do such a thing
are below, and I would be grateful for your consideration of this request.
From:
DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] <lisa. m.drake@monsanlo.com>
01/21/2015 11:27:11 AM
Sent time:
To:
Subject:
Folta, Kevin M.
RE: WcbMD process
Thanks, Kevin — Lisa
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:00 AM
To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]
Subject: RE: WebMD process
Lisa, I'm glad do to this and will bounce something off you soon. I'm absoultely slammed
and behind on everything. If it gets to the point where you need this done-done, shoot me
a note. It's on my list, just not first priority. Let me know when it needs to be.
Kevin
Kevin M, Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and
Plant Innovation Program
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-4812
"Don't tell me what can't be done , Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do It." - Norman Borlaug.
Illumination (
Twitter @kevinfolta
From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] < lisa. m.drake@inonsanto.com >
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:11 AM
To: Folta, Kevin M.
Subject: RE: WebMD process
Kevin: one more thing for your consideration: as you consider writing something, please consider insert the
word "labeling" somewhere in the content in order to get search algorithms to pick it up. Thanks again!
Lisa
From: Folta, Kevin M. f mailto:kfoltfl@ufl.edul
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:32 AM
To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/ 1000]
Subject: Re: WebMD process
Can do! My pleasure.
I'm traveling... So if you don't get a timely response please tap me on the shoulder.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 15, 2015, at 10:25 AM, DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] < 1 isa . m ,d raketolmon sarilo. w_m >
wrote:
THE CONVERSATION
Activists misuse open records requests to
harass researchers
August 27, 2015 3.50am EDT
A researcher buried in records requests can’t attend to actual science. Ian image via
www.shutterstock.com
Jack Payne
Senior Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources and Professor of Wildlife
Ecology and Conservation at University of Florida
This winter, Kevin Folta, a plant molecular biologist with the University of Florida’s (UF)
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), became the target of a sweeping public
records request from US Right to Know, an activist group that seeks to expose what it calls
“the failures of the corporate food system,” after answering questions on a website called
GMO Answers.
Folta is chairman of the Department of Horticultural Sciences here, which I oversee as senior
vice president of agriculture and natural resources at UF. His research uses genomics tools
to guide traditional breeding efforts in Florida crops. On the GMO Answers site, he writes
about the science of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), critically evaluating claims
about the technology. He is not compensated for his time, and uses GMO Answers as a
means to educate interested parties about the technology.
The result of this records request has been a months-long vetting of Folta’s communications
by university attorneys in preparation for handing over thousands of emails to US Right to
Know. The request is also a major distraction from his work as a scientist.
In my administrative role, I have to oversee these kinds of records requests and make sure
we are abiding by both the law and ethical standards of scientific research. Requests such
as the one from US Right to Know consume attention and energy, pose the danger of
silencing other scientists and impede us from pursuing our true mission of groundbreaking
science.
Google"
clim|
climate change
climate
climax
climate gate scandal
climbing gear
climate zones
climatemaster
climbing
clima
climbing shoes
Google Search I'm Feeling Lucky
In 2009, Google Suggest was at the ready to serve up results
about Climategate. search-engine-land, CC BY
‘Climategate’ and misrepresented messages
Folta is certainly not the first or only scientist to face activists bent on cherry-picking emails to
distort research with a goal of applying pressure to men and women who work on
controversial topics.
The most notorious case has been dubbed “Climategate,” in which hackers extracted
thousands of emails from the server of a British university in 2009. Climate change deniers
asserted that the emails demonstrated global warming was a worldwide scientific
conspiracy.
In a letter in the journal Science, 225 members of the US National Academy of Sciences
condemned the hack as an example of “political assaults on scientists and climate scientists
in particular.” Scientific organizations worldwide reiterated the scientific consensus around
climate change. All that, of course, could not unring the bell and put the controversy to rest.
What we’ve learned from episodes such as Climategate is that emails can be used out of
context to confuse the public about issues around which there is, in fact, solid scientific
consensus.
Open records requests wielded as a weapon
The abuse of open records law as an activists’ tool wielded against researchers is prevalent
enough that the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group long recognized for its hard
skeptical stance on agricultural biotechnology, earlier this year published a report titled
Freedom to Bully: How Laws Intended to Free Information Are Used to Harass Researchers.
It highlights multiple cases similar to Folta’s, by no means limited to agricultural
biotechnology. For example:
An occupational health scientist at West Virginia University received multiple records
requests from a mining company after he investigated connections between
mountaintop removal mining and adverse health effects.
A University of North Carolina poverty researcher was targeted by a conservative
think tank, requiring him to review thousands of emails.
A legal scholar of religious freedom at the University of Virginia faced a Freedom of
Information Act request backed by an LGBTQ advocacy group for phone and email
records between him and various religious liberty groups.
Harassing requests threaten scientific enterprise
The expense of paper chases bothers me. What worries me more, though, is the prospect
that other Kevin Foltas are silent because they do not want to be subjected to the
harassment he endures. For instance, our national scientific societies have been silent
during this episode.
Joy Rumble, an assistant professor of agricultural communication here atUF/IFAS, identifies
this phenomenon as part of the spiral of silence. People tend not to publicly share their
beliefs if they feel they’re in the minority, the theory goes, for fear of isolation or reprisals.
That silence feeds greater fear among dissenters as the status quo dominates the public
discussion.
In a society in which the might of a megaphone too often trumps the power of ideas, self-
censorship can mean truth loses.
And it’s not an abstract concept to Rumble. She, too, answered a question or two on GMO
Answers. She, too, was then targeted by a public records request. Her crime, in the view of
the detractors who seek to discredit her, appears to be talking about talking about
biotechnology. She wants to help scientists become better communicators, to bridge the gap
between scientific consensus and public perception.
The Union of Concerned Scientists report decries the use of broad records requests that can
hijack researchers’ time, divert university money, and chill researchers’ interest in
communicating with the public they serve.
It’s particularly distressing in an agricultural research context since 3.1 million children under
the age of five die each yearfrom malnutrition, while there are no documented cases of a
child - or anyone - dying from eating GMO foods in the two decades they have been
available to the public.
So when Folta gets death threats or has to deal with online posts about his deceased
mother, or we have to search emails for nonexistent evidence of a conspiracy theory, that’s
more than a nuisance. Harassment of researchers contributes to the locking up in labs of
potential solutions to worldwide problems.
Transparency is crucial
Yes, Folta’s email communications with agricultural companies should be public records.
The integrity of public university research is based in part on its transparency. It’s germane
that the public know where we get our funding, whatever the source.
That’s different from sifting through 4,600 pages of emails and other records to mine for
defamatory out-of-context sentences. Reimbursements for travel and small financial
contributions to defray the cost of a conference or student attendance at a meeting are
poised to be paraded as bribery-for-service.
Yet our scientific statements reflect scientific consensus and experimental evidence, not the
influence of funders. While we can point to examples of cozy relationships between
scientists and corporations that raise questions of research integrity, I’d argue these
instances aren’t the norm in the scientific community. A 2009 meta-analysis reports that 2%
of scientists admit to fabricating or falsifying data. If recognized, misconduct- such as
allowing results to be dictated by a funding source - can destroy careers.
For example, researcher Eric Smart was shown to have fabricated cardiovascular-diabetes
data for almost a decade. Once discovered, he resigned from his position, is excluded from
applying for federal grants for seven years and now teaches high school chemistry. Others
typically accept settlements that demand their research be supervised or that any employers
certify publications.
Such disruptions in publication and grant funding are difficult to overcome in a scientific
career. Making up data is a fast track to career suicide. Researchers recognize that, and the
overwhelming majority would not deliberately take that kind of risk - above and beyond what
their academic integrity would dictate. Yes, it’s important to acknowledge the concern that
corporate funding could potentially influence or steer research in a way that falls short of
falsifying data. But I have faith that the scientific enterprise self-corrects these unintentional
lapses.
People opposed to this kind of harassment-via-records-request can sign the Cornell Alliance
for Science #Science14 letter. It’s a petition in support of academic freedom and the 14
scientists at four universities currently targeted by anti-GMO activists’ public records
requests.
As a university administrator, I’d rather spend money on so many things than taxpayer-
funded witch hunts. We’re forced to divert funds that could be used in the search to alleviate
human suffering rooted in starvation and malnutrition, in producing better food with less
environmental impact, and keeping our agricultural industries strong.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11